AMERICA - PATHWAYS TO THE PRESENT

2007 edition

This textbook is intended to indoctrinate students, not educate them. It is full of MANY factual errors, half truths and misleading statements. The political bias is evident throughout. Any student using this textbook will get a very unbalanced view about America and its history. It portrays America as a nation which is basically unfair and racist. Like most modern US history textbooks, this one tells the stories of the trials and tribulations of about 25% of the nation’s population and ignores the success and satisfaction of the other 75%. “Minorities” are seldom put in a negative light.

Logic alone proves this textbook is mostly propaganda. Since 1790, over 76 MILLION people have immigrated to the United States. Why would all these people come to a country that was so horrible? Why would millions fight to save our country? Why didn’t all blacks go back to Africa after the creation of Liberia in 1847? Why would million of people celebrate the Bicentennial of the United States in 1976?

“Africans, like Europeans, believed in the private ownership of goods and property. Yet they differed from Europeans in their attitudes toward land and people. In Europe, land was scarce and thus very valuable. In Africa, labor was often valued more than land. The power of leaders was determined by the number of people they ruled, not the amount of land they controlled. Growing kingdoms such as Benin and Songhai needed increasing numbers of workers. As in many other societies, slaves provided the labor.”

“. . .Most slaves (in Africa) had probably been captured in war, although many were kidnapped in slave raids carried out by rival ethnic groups. Africans’ concept of slavery differed from slavery as it developed in the Americas. In Africa, slaves became adopted members of the kinship group that enslaved them. They could marry into a lineage, even into the high ranks of society, and move out of their slave role. Children of slaves were not presumed to be born into slavery. Finally, slaves carried out a variety of roles, working as soldiers and administrators as well as laborers.”(1)

“. . . As time wore on, however, Europeans demanded more and more slaves. Those who resisted dealing in the human cargo became themselves the victims of bloody slave raids.”(2)

CORRECTIONS:

1. This is supposed to be a textbook on US history. So what is the purpose of attempting to prove that slave owners in Africa were more humane then slave owners in America? To absolve black Africa of their sin of slavery while condemning American slave owners? Or is it an attempt to make blacks feel better about their ancestors since they sold well over 10 million of their fellow blacks into slavery around the world - something no other culture in history came remotely close to doing.

Second, the claim that black Africa did NOT practice the most severe form of slavery - chattel slavery - IS NOT TRUE. An adventurer named Mungo Park toured central Africa between 1795 and 1797 and wrote a detailed account of his travels. African slavery was as bad as everyone else's slavery. His account also shows that the slave trade among Africans pre-dated major European involvement in the trade.

.

Excerpts of Travels in the Interior of Africa - Volume 2, by Mungo Park:

CHAPTER XXII - WAR AND SLAVERY

"SLAVERY: A state of subordination and certain inequalities of rank and condition are inevitable in every stage of civil society; but when the subordination is carried to so great a length that the persons and services of one part of the community are entirely at the disposal of another part, it may then be denominated a state of slavery, and in this condition of life a great body of the negro inhabitants of Africa have continued from the most early period of their history, with this aggravation, that their children are born to no other inheritance."

"The slaves in Africa, I suppose, are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen. They claim no reward for their services except food and clothing, and are treated with kindness or severity, according to the good or bad disposition of their masters. Custom, however, has established certain rules with regard to the treatment of slaves, which it is thought dishonourable to violate. Thus the domestic slaves, or such as are born in a man’s own house, are treated with more lenity than those which are purchased with money. The authority of the master over the domestic slave, as I have elsewhere observed, extends only to reasonable correction; for the master cannot sell his domestic, without having first brought him to a public trial before the chief men of the place."

"But these restrictions on the power of the master extend not to the care of prisoners taken in war, nor to that of slaves purchased with money. All these unfortunate beings are considered as strangers and foreigners, who have no right to the protection of the law, and may be treated with severity, or sold to a stranger, according to the pleasure of their owners. There are, indeed, regular markets, where slaves of this description are bought and sold, and the value of a slave, in the eye of an African purchaser, increases in proportion to his distance from his native kingdom: for when slaves are only a few days’ journey from the place of their nativity they frequently effect their escape; but when one or more kingdoms intervene, escape being more difficult, they are more readily reconciled to their situation. On this account the unhappy slave is frequently transferred from one dealer to another, until he has lost all hopes of returning to his native kingdom. The slaves which are purchased by the Europeans on the coast are chiefly of this description. A few of them are collected in the petty wars, hereafter to be described, which take place near the coast, but by far the greater number are brought down in large caravans from the inland countries, of which many are unknown, even by name, to the Europeans."

"The slaves which are thus brought from the interior may be divided into two distinct classes - first, such as were slaves from their birth, having been born of enslaved mothers; secondly, such as were born free, but who afterwards, by whatever means, became slaves. Those of the first description are by far the most numerous, for prisoners taken in war (at least such as are taken in open and declared war, when one kingdom avows hostilities against another) are generally of this description. The comparatively small proportion of free people to the enslaved throughout Africa has already been noticed: and it must be observed that men of free condition have many advantages over the slaves, even in war time. They are in general better armed, and well mounted, and can either fight or escape with some hopes of success; but the slaves, who have only their spears and bows, and of whom great numbers are loaded with baggage, become an easy prey. Thus when Mansong, king of Bambarra, made war upon Kaarta (as I have related in a former chapter), he took in one day nine hundred prisoners, of which number not more than seventy were freemen. This account I received from Daman Jumma, who had thirty slaves at Kemmoo, all of whom were made prisoners by Mansong."

"Again, when a freeman is taken prisoner his friends will sometimes ransom him by giving two slaves in exchange; but when a slave is taken, he has no hopes of such redemption. To these disadvantages, it is to be added that the slatees, who purchase slaves in the interior countries and carry them down to the coast for sale, constantly prefer such as have been in that condition of life from their infancy, well knowing that these have been accustomed to hunger and fatigue, and are better able to sustain the hardships of a long and painful journey than freemen; and on their reaching the coast, if no opportunity offers of selling them to advantage, they can easily be made to maintain themselves by their labour; neither are they so apt to attempt making their escape as those who have once tasted the blessings of freedom."

"Slaves of the second description generally become such by one or other of the following causes:- 1, captivity; 2, famine; 3, insolvency; 4, crimes. A freeman may, by the established customs of Africa, become a slave by being taken in war. War is of all others the most productive source, and was probably the origin, of slavery; for when one nation had taken from another a greater number of captives than could be exchanged on equal terms, it is natural to suppose that the conquerors, finding it inconvenient to maintain their prisoners, would compel them to labour - at first, perhaps, only for their own support, but afterwards to support their masters. Be this as it may, it is a known fact that prisoners of war in Africa are the slaves of the conquerors; and when the weak or unsuccessful warrior begs for mercy beneath the uplifted spear of his opponent, he gives up at the same time his claim to liberty, and purchases his life at the expense of his freedom."

"WAR: In a country divided into a thousand petty states, mostly independent and jealous of each other, where every freeman is accustomed to arms and fond of military achievements, where the youth, who has practised the bow and spear from his infancy, longs for nothing so much as an opportunity to display his valour, it is natural to imagine that wars frequently originate from very frivolous provocation. When one nation is more powerful than another, pretext is seldom wanting for commencing hostilities. Thus the war between Kajaaga and Kasson was occasioned by the detention of a fugitive slave; that between Bambarra and Kaarta by the loss of a few cattle. Other cases of the same nature perpetually occur in which the folly or mad ambition of their princes and the zeal of their religious enthusiasts give full employment to the scythe of desolation."

Download book at either site: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5305 http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/park/mungo/travels/complete.html

2. All evidence indicates that Europeans were able to get all the black slaves they needed from local Africans. This is a good example of being selective in reporting history. Only Europeans are mentioned in the slave trade, but the Arabs were the biggest slave traders - far surpassing Europeans. The Muslim Arab slave trade in Africa pre-dated the European African slave trade by a thousand years and continued for more than a century after the Europeans had abolished the practice.

In addition, a large number of slaves brought to the New World went to the Caribbean Islands or Central America.

Read: Slavery in the Arab World by Murray Gordon.

______________________________________________________________

Page 15 - Spains major explorers (of the New World)

In 1519, Hernan Cortes was sent by the Spanish Governor of Cuba to conquer the vast empire ruled by the Aztec people in Mexico. The Aztecs governed some 10 to 12 million people. Cortes had only about 600 soldiers, but he also had thousands of allies among Native American who hated the Aztecs. Not only had the Aztecs conquered their neighbors, but they had also sacrificed untold numbers of them in religious ceremonies. By 1521, Cortes had destroyed Tenochtitlan (where Mexico City now stands) and conquered one of the largest empires in the world.”

“Like Cortes, Francisco Pizarro was a conquistadors or Spanish conqueror of the Americas. He conquered the empire of the Incas, centered in present day Peru, South America.[3]

“The Spanish dealt with Native Americans differently than did other European conquerors. They did not try to drive Indians out of their lands.[4] Instead they forced them to become a part of the colonial economy. One method they used was known as the encomienda system, under which Native Americans were forced to work for the profit of an individual Spaniard. In return, the Spaniard was supposed to ensure the well-being of the workers.”[5]

CORRECTIONS:

3.It’s amazing that the destruction of vast native American civilizations by the Spanish is put in a positive light, while other European conquerers are treated as killers. The Spanish played one Indian tribe against another so they could conquer vast territory in the New World with a clear conscience. Native tribes in Yucatan and other areas rebelled often against the Spanish.

4. NOT true. Although the Spanish never created Reservations for the native Americans - there were too many of them - the Spanish took whatever land they wanted and pushed the natives into other areas. The Spanish ruled the Indians although they were a small minority.

5. The Spanish colonizers introduced the encomienda system of forced labor on the large Indian population subjected to Spanish rule in the New World. It was modeled after the Spanish practice of exacting tribute from Muslims and Jews during the Reconquest of Muslim Spain. In theory, the Spanish were to provide protection and religious training to the Indians, who in turn paid tribute in the form of labor. Their labor obligations were to be limited to a portion of the year. In reality, the distinction between encomienda and slavery could be minimal and in practice it became a form of enslavement. The indigenous peoples would be grouped onto collective-like plantations where they would become serfs. The encomienda system successfully prevented any upward, social mobility for the indigenous peoples. The Spanish also used forced labor, often outright slavery, in mining for gold and silver. The Indians of Hispaniola were forced to do grueling labor, and subjected to extreme physical punishments if they resisted, which they often did. Though they were not bought and sold, they were subject to mass relocations when the Spaniards decreed the reallocation of Indians among Spanish overlords.

In many ways, the Spanish system of encomienda forced on the Native Americans was worse then the Reservations that Indians were forced onto later in North America. Indians on reservations in North America were left to live their life in their own culturally suitable way, whereas the Spanish forced their culture onto the Indians.

6. This book ignores the fact these settlers wanted to live in harmony with the Native Americans. “Do not offend the naturals,” advised the Council of the Virginia Company of London. The settlers arrived on May 14, 1607 on land unoccupied by Indians. Four days after landing, 100 armed Indians visited the settlers but left after a serious dispute over an English hatchet. On May 26 the settlement was attacked by 400 Indians. At least 3 Indians and 1 settler were killed and others were wounded.

Also ignores the fact that in 1622, Native Americans launched a sneak attack on the settlement and killed 347 men, women and children - a quarter of the population of Jamestown. This massacre resulted in a murderous campaign by the settlers to kill all Indians in the surrounding area.

Also: http://www.nps.gov/jame/an-unoccupied-site.htm

______________________________________________________________

Page 20 - (The Pilgrims)

“The Pilgrims settled near a harbor, and named their colony Plymouth after the English port from which they had sailed. Like the Jamestown settlers, the Pilgrims endured tremendous hardships. Half of them died in the first winter alone. The next summer, the colonists had the help of a Native American, Squanto, who taught them how to plant corn. Their plentiful harvest of corn led the settlers to hold a great feast of thanksgiving in the fall of 1621.”(7)

CORRECTIONS:

7.Not true. The Pilgrims landed in the New World in December, 1620, far too late to plant crops. The Spring of 1621 was the Pilgrims first plantings in the New World. Corn is native to North and South America. The Pilgrims never saw corn until they landed in the New World, but saved some ears for seed to plant in the Spring. Squanto gave them tips on how to grow corn but having a plentiful corn crop was NOT the deciding factor in how successful their growing season was. The Pilgrims had a good growing season for all their crops and the harvest would sustain the settlement through the coming winter. They also had plenty of fish, wild turkey and deer meat. The Pilgrims decided to celebrate this abundance with a Thanksgiving feast.

______________________________________________________________

Page 31 - Tensions with the French and Native Americans

“The colonists’ desire for more land raised tensions between the new settlers and those groups who already lived on the land - the French(8) and the Indians. In the Ohio and Susquehanna River valleys, Native American groups, including the Delaware, the Shawnee, and the Huron, were moving west, too. As white settlers migrated into Native American territory, they forced the local Indians to relocate into lands already occupied by other Native American groups.”(9)

CORRECTIONS:

8.The authors are wrongly lumping the French and the Indians together. The French were new arrivals in the New World like all the other Europeans. The French had their own wars with the Indians and they also attacked English towns in the New World.

For instance, in 1685, Jacques-René de Brisay de Denonville took control of New France. Although France and England were at peace, in June 1687, French troops attacked and captured the English fur trading posts on Hudson Bay. This attack was a factor in France and England going to war in 1688.

Denonville then lulled 50 chiefs of the Iroquois Confederacy to a meeting to arrange a truce between the French and Iroquois. But Denonville had them chained and shipped to Marseilles, France, to be used as galley slaves.

In 1687, Denonville launched a war against the Seneca Indian Tribes. He landed French troops at Irondequoit Bay, destroying many of its villages deep in Seneca territory. The Seneca fled south to the Susquehanna River.

9. This textbook wants you to believe that Indian tribes went to war with each other because of white settlers moving west and forcing local tribes to compete with other tribes for land. The fact is Native American tribes went to war with each other long before the white man arrived. Some Indian tribes were exterminated by other tribes and other Indians were run off their land by other Indian tribes. When white settlers went to war with Native American tribes, it suddenly became an unforgiveable crime.

It must also be noted that the Spanish conquerers took land from the Indians, but they are never condemned for it. Neither does this book have any comments from Indians critical of the Spanish taking over and forcing them into the Encomienda system on land they used to own!

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

Denonville

______________________________________________________________

Page 35 - cartoon

CORRECTIONS:

This cartoon has many falsehoods. The “White” man is pointing to a presumed Mexican family in the US illegally. The Indian is claiming that White people in the US are really the illegal immigrants - as if the Spanish are innocent.

To single out “White” people is deceitful and inaccurate. The Spanish were the first invaders to the New World and killed a lot more Indians then were killed by the other Europeans that conquered what became the US. The Spanish destroyed the Aztec, Mayan and Inca empires and sent the silver and gold back to Spain. Explorers from other nations came after the Spanish.

If some people want White Americans to leave, we must be consistent and send ALL the ‘invaders’ back. All the Spanish in the ‘New World’ would have to leave. Blacks and Asians would have to leave. What about people who are part Indian? If all non-Indians left America, America would be de-populated, the world economy would collapse and lots of people in Africa would starve to death. The US military would disappear, Russia would rule the world and occupy what used to be the USA and take all the land from the Indians.

Native peoples have been displaced by invaders since recorded history. Why are ‘white’ Americans condemned for their actions hundreds of years ago but nobody else is? You can’t undo what has happened over the past 500 years. If what happened in the past needs to be “fixed”, we need to go all around the world and kick millions of people out of lots of countries who didn’t live there in the past. Oh, and who would enforce this forced relocation? What do we do with Indian tribes who conquered other Indian tribes and took their land?

White people have been in the ‘New World’ for several hundred years. That’s long enough to be a native. We’re staying and we will enforce immigration laws like every other country in the world. Enforcing immigration laws is essential to maintaining our quality of life. Unlimited immigration - open borders - will eventually turn the US into an over-populated third world nation.

History books in our schools are very selective about which countries and cultures are condemned and which ones are not. Strangely, Hispanic students in American schools seem to be immune from criticism on this subject. Americans need to stop feeling guilt concerning the Indians. The white man didn’t do anything to the Indians the indians didn’t do to each other. The Indians went to war with each other long before the “white” man arrived. The ‘White’ mans crime was we won.

______________________________________________________________

Page 115 - African American Worship

“African Americans sometimes felt unwelcome in white-dominated churches. The tensions between whites and blacks increased as African Americans became more assertive about sharing in democratic liberty.”(10)

CORRECTION:

10. It’s true that African Americans felt unwelcome in some white churches, but this sentence is misleading. This sentence would make it appear that when blacks show up at a church, then the church must change to suit them or else the whites are racist. That’s not how it works. When you join a church it is presumably because you like going there. If you don’t like the format, worship style, etc., of a church, change churches or start your own. Blacks started their own churches.

The leading black evangelist of colonial America, Rev. Richard Allen, expressed a desire for a separate black church in 1786, shortly after he arrived at St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. In 1816, Allen was a leader in forming the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), the first fully independent black denomination in the United States and was elected their first bishop. This was the first time in the history of Christianity that a Christian denomination was based on race rather then spiritual beliefs.

The Gospel of Christ never intended churches to be segregated, but blacks and whites became segregated in the late 1700s for the same reasons they are segregated today - people choose churches where they feel comfortable and has members they can relate to. Culture is really the dividing line, though people change churches for all sorts of reasons. Today, over 2 centuries after America’s founding and a half century of civil rights legislation "Ninety percent of African-American Christians worship in all-black churches. Ninety percent of white American Christians worship in all-white churches," according to Chris Rice, coauthor of More Than Equals: Racial Healing for the Sake of the Gospel.(A)

“Even if the United States could persuade Mexico to accept the annexation (of Texas), a dispute about the southern boundary of Texas remained an explosive issue. The United States claimed that the Rio Grande was the official American-Mexican border. Mexico claimed that the Nueces River, located quite a few miles farther north, was the border.”(11)

“Polk, though wanted much more from Mexico than just Texas. Polk had dreams of acquiring the entire territory stretching from Texas to the Pacific.(12) He sent a representative to Mexico City in November 1845 with an offer to buy New Mexico and California. The Mexican government refused to meet with the representative.”(13)

“Polk then ordered more than 3,000 American troops under General Zachary Taylor into the disputed area of southern Texas.(14) Mexican troops engaged in a skirmish with Taylor’s forces in late April 1846.(15) Expressing outrage at the loss of “American blood on American soil,” Polk pushed for a declaration of war.”

CORRECTIONS:

11. The Rio Grande River became the border on May 14, 1836, when Santa Anna, the head of Mexico’s government, signed the Treaties of Velasco, which resulted in Texas becoming an independent nation. Santa Anna had been captured by the Texas Army after they crushed the Mexican Army at the battle of San Jacinto. He was treated with tremendous respect as a prisoner and didn’t have to sign anything.

The war started when Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande River and ambushed US forces. Mexico’s claim that this attack was over a boundary dispute is not true. Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River. Polk was aware of this Mexican scam. If Mexico wanted the boundary to be the Nueces, they had 10 years to bring it up with Texas, and later the US and negotiate a deal. But the issue was really not about the border. Mexico was NEVER going to resolve the border impasse as that would be an admission that Texas was separate from Mexico. Mexico intended to conquer Texas and reclaim their former province.

Most people don't know this, but Texas was NOT the first state to secede from Mexico. Because of the dysfunctional state of Mexican politics - and only 2 years after independence, five states in central America declared themselves independent from Mexico - Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Central Americans chafed at Mexican rule, and there were several battles with Mexican forces. On July 1, 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formally established in Guatemala City. Like leaders in Mexico, they thought they would have a prosperous future, but constant infighting and wars resulted in the Union falling apart in 1838. The five provinces became independent nations. So why hasn’t Mexico made an issue out of this over the past 190 years? Is it because they are fellow Spanish, whereas the northern territories came under control of those evil Anglo Americans? Just wondering.

12.Although the US wanted to buy this land, desiring to buy something does not prove that you intend to steal it and is not proof you intend to start a war over it. The US had every reason to believe Mexico would sell this land as they were on the verge of bankruptcy with a staggering national debt, had scarcely any citizens on the land and in fact had very little control over the area. Had Mexico not started a war with the US, Mexico wouldn’t have lost the southwest US, or if they did, there could be no denying that the US stole it.

Polk had every reason to seek a diplomatic solution with Mexico. The US Army was untested against a conventional army. The last time the US Army faced off against a regular Army was the War of 1812, when they were routed by the British. Why would Polk fight a country with an untried army far from home over unfamiliar territory? He risked blundering into a stalemate like that which France faced in trying to set up Maximilian as emperor of Mexico during the 1860s.

The fact is the US didn’t have to go to war to acquire California or New Mexico. The US had thousands of immigrants moving west each year. Within a few years, California would have had a heavy majority of Americans and New Mexico would only be a few years behind. So why go to war, if population growth could accomplish the same thing without all the bloodshed of a war? In addition, many Mexicans in California and New Mexico favored being annexed by the US because they realized their own government was dysfunctional.

13. The Mexican president, Herrera, was a man who wanted peace between the US and Mexico. He REQUESTED that the US send a representative (John Slidell) to Mexico City in the hopes that all the differences between the two countries could be resolved. By the time Slidell got there, Herrera was about to be overthrown by the war mongers, led by General Mariano Paredes, whose sole objective was to start a war with the US. Hererra refused to meet with Slidell because he was trying to save his government from being overthrown, but it didn’t help. Paredes overthrew Herrera in January, 1846 and began planning to invade Texas.

14. This land was not in dispute. The border was the Rio Grande River. If the border had been changed to the Nueces River at some point, it wouldn’t have changed anything. Mexico was intent on conquering Texas regardless of which river was the border. Historical revisionists have said that the US intended to provoke a war with Mexico by stationing troops on the north side of the Rio Grande River. This is bogus reasoning and ignores facts. Who was provoking who? How could the US be responsible for starting a war with a country that had repeatedly declared war on the US, refused to negotiate, put an invasion force on the border and declared they would conquer Texas again? Polk had a moral obligation to defend Texas from Mexico.

15.In a letter dated Apr 18, 1846, Paredes wrote to General Arista “It is indispensable that hostilities begin, yourself taking the initiative.” On April 25, 1846, Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed American troops. Mexico got the war they had long talked about starting.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war. Under its harsh terms,(16) Mexico gave up its claim to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border of Texas. Mexico also gave up New Mexico and California, which together made of more than two fifths of its territory. The United States paid Mexico $15 million.”

“In 1853, Mexico sold 30,000 square miles of what is now southern New Mexico and Arizona to the United States for $10 million.”(17)

CORRECTIONS;

16.Mexico didn’t leave the US any choice but to be harsh. Mexico brought the heavy hand of justice down on themselves. Because of Mexico’s refusal to negotiate on anything, war was the ONLY answer. So the real issue today is this: Even if Mexico is 100% to blame for starting the war - which they are - did the US have the right to take almost half of Mexico’s territory? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES!! Here’s why:

Mexico was looking for an excuse to start this war because they were certain they could defeat the US. But Mexico lost every major battle. To have beaten Mexico as badly as we did, conquered most of their country including the capital city, and then told them they must accept Texas as part of the US, which it already was, now lets move on? This would have been an unforgivable disgrace to our country, the men who died and the rest who went through hell to attain victory.

Now put yourself in Mexico’s shoes. Your army has been repeatedly defeated, nearly the entire country has been conquered, and the consequences are - nothing!! Just be nice and don’t threaten Texas again! In a machismo society like Mexico, would they sit back and say ‘OK.’ Or would Mexico think we Americans are unbelievably gullible. Mexico would hold Americans in even greater contempt and disrespect for conquering their country and not making them pay a price for their warmongering. Would this teach them not to do it again? Or would they realize, very quickly, that there is no price to pay for aggression? We gave Mexico our best shot. Now they know our game plan. What could we do the next time that would be worse?

If the US could change history, what could we change so Mexico would love us today? If we only kept Texas and didn‘t take California and New Mexico, would Mexico would still hate us for keeping Texas? Absolutely yes! Mexico should have accepted the lose of Texas forever just like they accepted the lose of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica forever. Losing the southwest US was the consequences of going to war against the US. Although many Mexicans consider the southwest US stolen Mexican land, this is NOT TRUE. This land is historically Indian land. The Spanish stole it from the Indians.

The reality is that the US was far more generous to Mexico then they needed to be. Mexico demanded $30 million for the land we already had conquered. We gave them $15 million and the US assumed Mexican debts of $3.25 million owed to American citizens.

The fact that such a small American Army was able to control a country of 7 million people proves that a lot of Mexicans were not that interested in fighting the “hated” Americans and stayed home. If all of Mexico had mobilized to defend the country, an army of over a quarter million men could have easily been raised. The US controlled the capital city, the main port of Veracruz, many major cities and ports, arsenals, forts and even the mines in Mexico. The state of Yucatan had refused to send any men to fight the Americans. Most of the native Americans living under Mexican rule felt no desire to defend Mexico. By the end of the war, Mexico only had 8,109 men left in their army and the country was broke. The US could continue to occupy these cities indefinitely because the vast majority of the local population were content to live under US occupation. The truth is the average Mexican had it better living under the US military then under their own corrupt government.

Most Mexicans believe that if they had kept ownership of the land north of the Rio Grande - Texas, California and New Mexico, these areas would be economically prosperous like they are now. This is wishful - even delusional thinking. These areas became prosperous because they belong to the US, not Mexico. Had these lands stayed under the control of Mexico, they would not have helped Mexico prosper. This part of Mexico would be as dysfunctional as the rest of Mexico. All that would change is that constant revolutions, widespread poverty, a disastrous economic system, bad health care, poor education, political turmoil and murderous drug cartels would be in a country twice as large as it is now. Even more illegal immigrants from Mexico would be coming into our considerably smaller country for jobs.

17. Mexico was broke again due to Santa Anna’s incompetence, and needed cash, so Mexico sold more of it’s land to the US.

______________________________________________________________

Page 137 - Indians and Western Migration

“Until the Mexican War, the United States had proclaimed all land west of the 95th meridian, or line of longitude, to be Indian Country. The migration of thousand of settlers into Indian Country, therefore, posed a problem. By the 1850s, the government increasingly saw the answer to that problem in the creation of reservations, or areas that the government sets aside for Native Americans who have lost their homelands. Many Native Americans refused to be herded onto reservations and fought to preserve their way of life.”(18)

CORRECTIONS:

18. Explain why it was okay for Indian tribes to run other tribes off their land, but an unforgivable crime when the white man did it. Just wondering.

______________________________________________________________

Page 241 - The Standard Oil Trust

“The new ease of attaining oil and oil’s growing usefulness excited many wealthy businessmen, including John D. Rockefeller. He had become rich from a grain and meat partnership during the Civil War, and he saw the oil business as a way to become even richer.(19) In 1863, Rockefeller built an oil refinery near Cleveland, Ohio. The refinery expanded rapidly.”

CORRECTIONS:

19. This comment is a cheap shot. So what should Rockefeller have done? Ignore a great business opportunity? If you saw a great opportunity to make money, would you pass it up and tell someone else so they could go for this opportunity? The commercial oil business was then in its infancy. Whale oil had become too expensive for the general public, and an alternative was desperately needed. In 1863, Rockefeller and a partner, Maurice Clark, built an oil refinery in Cleveland which helped the Union win the Civil War. In February 1865, Rockefeller bought out Clark and established the firm of Rockefeller & Andrews, the forerunner to Standard Oil Company. Rockefeller took advantage of post Civil War prosperity and the great expansion westward fostered by the growth of railroads and an oil-fueled economy. He borrowed heavily, reinvested profits and adapted rapidly to changing markets.

Rockefeller made continuous improvements in the efficiency of his operations, and bought rivals out. Standard Oil gradually gained almost complete control of oil refining and marketing in the United States. He saw himself as the industry’s savior, absorbing the weak and making the industry as a whole stronger, more efficient, and more competitive. Standard Oil made its products affordable to the average household. The price of kerosene dropped by nearly 80% over the life of the company. It developed over 300 oil-based products from tar to paint to Vaseline petroleum jelly to chewing gum.

The invention of the light bulb gradually began to erode the dominance of kerosene for lighting. But Standard Oil adapted, expanding into natural gas production in the U.S. and then into gasoline for automobiles, which until then had been considered a waste product.

In 1904, publication of The History of the Standard Oil Company, by Ida Tarbell, documented the company’s espionage, price wars and heavy-handed marketing tactics. It is also certainly true that he could have given his workers better pay. Despite this criticism, Rockefeller could boast that he had created jobs for over 100,000 Americans and ran one of the most efficient business operations in the world.

Rockefeller created foundations which pioneered the development of medical research that were instrumental in the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever.

From his very first paycheck, Rockefeller tithed ten percent of his earnings to his church. His church was later affiliated with the Northern Baptist Convention, which formed from American Baptists in the North with ties to their historic missions to establish schools and colleges for freedmen in the South after the American Civil War. As a devoted Northern Baptist, he supported many church-based institutions. Rockefeller was an abolitionist who voted for Abraham Lincoln and supported the then new Republican Party.

Rockefeller believed in the Efficiency Movement, arguing that: "To help an inefficient, ill-located, unnecessary school is a waste... it is highly probable that enough money has been squandered on unwise educational projects to have built up a national system of higher education adequate to our needs, if the money had been properly directed to that end."

In 1884, Rockefeller provided major funding for a college in Atlanta for African-American women, which became Spelman College (named for Rockefeller's in-laws who were ardent abolitionists before the Civil War). Rockefeller also gave considerable donations to Denison University and other Baptist colleges.

Rockefeller was also the founder of both the University of Chicago and Rockefeller University and funded the establishment of Central Philippine University in the Philippines.

Rockefeller adhered to total abstinence from alcohol and tobacco throughout his life.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Rockefeller in 1885

______________________________________________________________

Page 513 to 559 - The Depression starts and ends(20)

CORRECTIONS

20. You would think the whole country was in ruins. As bad as things were for many people, 75 to 85 percent of the American work force was employed during the depression.

Page 517 -

“African Americans, Hispanics, and in the West, Asian Americans all suffered as white laborers began to demand the low-paying jobs typically filled by these minorities. Hispanics and Asian Americans lost not only their jobs but also their country. Thousands were deported - even those born in the United States.(21) Black unemployment soared - about 56 percent of black Americans were out of work in 1932. Some white citizens declared openly that blacks had no right to jobs if whites were out of work.”(22)

“The justice system often ignored the rights of minority Americans. In March 1931, near Scottsboro, Alabama, nine black youths who had been riding the rails were arrested and accused of raping two white women on a train.(23) Without being given the chance to hire a defense lawyer, eight of the nine were quickly convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to die.”

“The case of the “Scottsboro boys” was taken up, and sometimes exploited, by northern groups, most notably the communist Party. The party helped supply legal defense and organized demonstrations, which, after many years, helped overturn the convictions, but four of the 'boys’ spent many years in jail.”(24)

CORRECTIONS:

21. This is another issue in which this textbook unfairly bashes America, giving only one side of the story.

First, authorities were only after deportable aliens.(1) Mexicans were not just rounded up and shipped back to Mexico. In most cases, there WAS due process. For instance, in the El Monte Raid, 300 people were stopped and questioned, with only 13 jailed, 12 being Mexican.(2) In the LA city plaza raid in Feb. 1931, about 400 people were questioned about their immigration status. Only 17 were detained, 11 being Mexican.(3) Nine of the 11 Mexicans were later released.(4) Most of the US citizens who were deported were children born in the US - which automatically makes them citizens - to parents who were non-citizens or here illegally. Obviously, if the parents were deported they are going to take their children with them. Mexicans who were being deported were taken care of by US authorities. No one went hungry or lacked medical attention.(5) Claims of Mexicans being abused in the US were lies told by the Mexican media, which has been bashing America since the 1830s.(6) Mexico actually praised the repatriation efforts in Los Angeles.(7)

Second, there is nothing immoral, criminal or racist with evicting illegals from your country. It happens in every country in the world, including Mexico. Since at least the 1850s, non-citizens - whether German, Irish, Italian, Mexican, etc., etc., were replaced with citizens during economic downtimes. Most Mexicans came to the US for a job, NOT to become a citizen. It is incredibly arrogant to come to America solely to make a living, send a lot of your money out of the country and THEN be offended when you are deported so citizens can take your job. Deporting non-citizens was not an unthinkable idea when 15 to 24% of Americans were unemployed.

Third, it was NOT hispanics in general, it was mostly Mexicans who were deported, because - even in the 1930s - it was mostly Mexicans who were here illegally. When the Mexican Revolution of 1910 broke out, over 500,000 Mexicans entered the US to escape the violence. Because the border at this time was seldom patrolled, Mexicans entered the US at will, most illegally. After 1917, a higher head tax and literacy requirement imposed for entry prompted more people to enter illegally.(8) It was this huge increase in illegal immigration into the southwest US that caused Congress to establish the US Border Patrol in 1924.

Many Mexicans never applied for citizenship, because most intended to eventually return to Mexico after making enough money in the US.(9) American officials in the southwest US were well aware of this fact. It is estimated that about one-half of those immigrants who entered the United States from 1900 to 1930 freely returned to Mexico.(10) Between 1917 and 1929, Mexican migrants in the United States sent over $10 million to relatives in their home country.(11) The Mexican Consulate sponsored campaigns to repatriate Mexicans, promising their expenses would be paid and some would even get a job in Mexico.

Fourth, the number of Mexicans deported has been greatly exaggerated. Some claim 2 million were deported but this is mathematically impossible. In 1930, the U.S. Census counted 1.42 million people of Mexican ancestry, with 805,535 born in the U.S.(12) There were 1.225 million people of Mexican ancestry in the 4 states bordering Mexico.(13) Critics claim the 1930 census under counted Mexicans living in the US, but the two million figure is still not possible. The most reliable source has about 500,000 people sent back to Mexico. This data comes from the "Departmento de Migracion de Mexico" or “Mexican Migration Service,” which was said to be a reliable source since the Mexican government had many ports along the border in which Mexicans were required to register and could do so free of charge.(14) A 1936 dispatch from the U.S. Consulate General in Mexico City says 345,839 people went to Mexico from 1930 to 1935, with 1931 as the peak year.(13) Many Mexicans were deported who were on public assistance.

Ironically, this was a reversal of what Mexico did to many US citizens living in Mexican California in 1840, when Mexico arrested Americans, even those with valid visas and hauled them off to jail in chains to Mexico City. They never received any compensation for their property losses.(15)

Some historians believe that some Americans didn’t accept Mexican Americans as “real” Americans. This was probably true in some cases. However, it is also true that many Mexican Americans don’t consider themselves “Americans,” rather Mexicans with American citizenship living in America. A large percentage of Mexican-Americans have Dual citizenship.

Some believe this was a xenophobic campaign against Mexicans. We should keep in mind that only immigrants from Spain were allowed into New Spain (later Mexico) for 300 years. THAT is xenophobia.

Families and friends gather at the Los Angeles railroad station in 1931 to bid farewell to Mexicans returning to Mexico.(17)

22. If you are going to make an explosive charge like this, you better say who said it, which this book does not. This is extremely irresponsible writing.

23. This sentence is too vague and makes it appear that authorities were just looking for blacks to pin a rape on. Here’s is how the whole incident got started.

During the depression, unemployed people often rode the trains to different towns looking for work. On this train, there were 9 blacks, several white males and 2 white women. A fight broke out between the blacks and the white males. The white males lost and were thrown off the train. They reported this to the sheriff who organized a posse and stoped the train at Paint Rock, Alabama and found the blacks along with the two white girls who then said they had been raped by the blacks. One of the blacks had a gun.

The blacks were then arrested and taken to the Scottsboro, Alabama jail where a lynch mob soon formed in front of the jail. The white sheriff, Matt Wann, stood in front of the jail and said he would kill the first person to come through his door. He then called the Governor, Benjamin Miller, who called in the National Guard to protect the jail. The guardsmen then brought the 9 blacks unharmed to Gadsden, Alabama for trial. The trials were a sham.

24. The Textbook leaves out important information. One of the white women, Ruby Bates, recanted at the second trial. At the time she accused the black men of raping her, Bates was seventeen years old. She lived, like her train companion, Victoria Price, in a poor neighborhood in Huntsville, Alabama, where blacks and whites played together, drank together, and sometimes slept together. Bates had once been arrested for hugging a black man in public. After the second trial, Bates spoke at public rallies in defense of the “Scottsboro boys.”

Victoria Price maintained her claim of being raped for the rest of her life. In 1934 lawyers for the International Labor Defense, the legal arm for the Communist Party USA, tried to bribe her to change her testimony, but she revealed the plot to the police. Price died in 1983.

Of the “Scottsboro boys”, Haywood Patterson was convicted of rape and sentenced to 75 years. He escaped in 1948 and fled to Michigan. After police found him, Michigan refused Alabama’s extradition request. Later, he was arrested for stabbing a man to death in a bar fight and convicted of manslaughter. Patterson died of cancer in prison in 1952, after serving one year.

Ozie Powell, while being taken to Birmingham Prison in 1936, got into an argument with an officer who then hit Powell in the head. Powell pulled a pocket knife and slit the officer’s throat. The other officer shot Powell in the face, and he suffered permanent brain damage. Powell pled guilty to assaulting the deputy and was sentenced to 20 years. Powell was released from prison in 1946.

After doing 6 years in prison, Roy Wright married and joined the Merchant Marine. After Wright came back from a lengthy time at sea in 1959, he thought his wife had been unfaithful. He shot and killed her before turning the gun on himself.

Clarence Norris escaped parole and went into hiding in 1946. He was pardoned by George Wallace in 1976 after he was found. Norris, the last surviving defendant, died in 1989.

“Indeed, government programs did mean the difference between survival and starvation for millions of Americans.”(25)

CORRECTION:

25.This is not true. There was no mass starvation. Private charities prevented anybody from starving for years until FDR’s New Deal programs provided public works jobs for many of the unemployed.

______________________________________________________________

Page 576 - Hitler’s Pact with Stalin

“Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had been sworn enemies, but Hitler and Stalin recognized that they had much to gain by working together. . . . In August (1939), he and Hitler signed a ten year Nonaggression Pact which eliminated the danger of a Soviet invasion from the east. . . (26) One week later, on September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland.” . . . “Using the blitzkrieg tactic, German troops overran Poland in less than a month.”(27)

CORRECTIONS:

26.NOT true. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany BOTH were imperialist nations conquering their neighbors. In August 1939, Hitler and Stalin agreed to divide Eastern Europe in accordance to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were divided into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence."

The Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30, 1939 and forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The League of Nations deemed the attack illegal and expelled the Soviet Union from the League on 14 December 1939. The Soviet Union then took control of the small countries Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940. The Soviets then killed or deported 34,250 Latvians, 75,000 Lithuanians and almost 60,000 Estonians.

Source: Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. p. 334.

27. Authors forgot about the Soviets. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland from the west and on September 17, the Soviets invaded Poland from the east. Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland in half.

.

.

.

______________________________________________________________

Page 626 - Viewing History

“To defeat the Japanese in the Pacific, United States Marines had to keep their strategies from the enemy. Navajo code talkers, using a Native American language, allowed the Allies to stay one step ahead of the Japanese. How else did the armed forces benefit from diversity?”(28)

CORRECTIONS:

28. The diversity of the 1940s has nothing in common with the diversity being pushed on our society since the 1970s by the Multiculturalists. The United States is the most ethnically diverse nation in history and traditional multiculturalism was a tremendous asset fostering unity and loyalty to America. During World War Two, over 12 MILLION men and women in a country of 150 million served in the military. Virtually every able bodied man between 18 and 36 served his country, with 400,000 losing their lives.

Modern Multiculturalism promotes DIVISION - NOT diversity. Far from creating tolerance, modern Multiculturalism REQUIRES separation into competing groups. It has replaced assimilation and American identity with division, separation and a gross misrepresentation of American history. It causes divisions over ethnic makeup, race and language, splitting communities and schools into hostile factions. Multiculturalists encourage immigrant and minority groups to see themselves as ‘outsiders,’ estranged from America and victims.

No society can survive intact unless its members subscribe to a set of values and principles. The Founders Fathers recognized that people would be coming to America from all around the world and had to be “Americanized”. This is why they adopted our National Motto in 1782: “E Pluribus Unum.” This phrase describes an action: Many uniting into one, or "Out of many, one."

Being ‘Americanized’ does NOT and NEVER HAS meant losing your cultural identity! Being ‘Americanized’ is a positive concept and introduces immigrants to the highest form of self rule here in the United States. Being ‘Americanized’ means teaching immigrants the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law and Judeo-Christian ethics - which many of our laws are based on. Immigrants need to learn how our government works and the awesome responsibility of voting. Immigrants must profess loyalty to America and learn English.

Multiculturalists created a controversy where none existed before. Modern Multiculturalism is really a political movement designed to destroy American unity and weaken America from within. Claiming that certain cultures in America are ‘dominated’ cultures is just another way for Multiculturalists to tear America apart.

The end result of these teachings in hate, separation and superiority:

.

• The episode in 1998 when the US played Mexico in a championship soccer game in Los Angeles. Fans were overwhelmingly pro-Mexican. They booed the US team, booed during the playing of the US national anthem and US players were spat at and trash was thrown at them. There have been similar incidents since.

• Schools ban T-shirts with the American flag and won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance for fear of “offending” someone.

Modern Multiculturalism is the most destructive social policy ever put in place in the history of America. WHAT POSSIBLE GOOD CAN COME FROM MODERN MULTICULTURALISM? IS DISUNITY, HATRED AND STRIFE PREFERABLE TO UNITY AND SOCIAL ORDER?

“All the camps were located in desolate areas. Families lived in wooden barracks covered with tar paper, in rooms equipped only with cots, blankets, and a light bulb. People had to share toilet, bathing and dining facilities.(30) Barbed wire surrounded the camps, and armed guards patrolled the grounds. Although the government referred to these as relocation camps, one journalist pointed out that they seemed “uncomfortably close to concentration camps.”(31)

CORRECTIONS:

29. As usual, the authors are intent on making America look bad so they exaggerate and leave out important information. You need to put yourself in the average Americans shoes in early 1942 to understand the emotions of the time. In 1942, the world was falling apart and the war against Japan and Germany was now officially declared.

In Europe, Nazi Germany defeated Denmark, Norway and destroyed the Armies of France, Belgium and The Netherlands in only 6 weeks. Only Britain was left. Germany seemed invincible.

The supreme shock for Americans was on Dec. 7, 1941, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. In April, 1941, Japan had signed a non aggression treaty with the Soviet Union which allowed Japan to concentrate most of it’s military power against the US. Japan inflicted heavy losses on the US Pacific fleet, killing over 2,400 men, wounding 1,300, sinking 4 battleships and destroying 188 aircraft. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the first attack on US soil since the War of 1812. Japan had already conquered large parts of Asia and attacked the Philippines on Dec. 8, 1941, where 16,000 U.S. soldiers were cut off and doomed to die - or worse - be taken prisoner of the sadistic Japanese. Only the US stood in Japan’s way of complete domination of Asia and the western Pacific. The barbaric Japanese military seemed invincible.

Thanks to American ingenuity, we broke the Japanese code in late 1940. Intercepts indicated the existence of a Japanese spy ring on the west coast of the U.S.(A)

Then the attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in a bizarre incident on the Hawaiian Island of Niihau. A Japanese fighter, damaged in the attack on Pearl Harbor, crash landed on Niihau. There were only about 130 people on the island, 3 of Japanese descent. All three eventually sided with the Japanese fighter pilot and tried to take the islanders prisoner. During the confrontation, the Japanese pilot was killed and one of the ethnic Japanese committed suicide.(B)

After the ordeal, the Hawaiians were troubled by "the rapidity with which the three resident Japanese went over to the pilot's cause. The more pessimistic among them cited the Niihau incident as proof that no one could trust any Japanese, even if an American citizen, not to go over to Japan if it appeared expedient."[C]

In the official Navy report on the Niihau incident, dated January 26, 1942, its author, Navy Lieutenant C. B. Baldwin, wrote, "The fact that the two Niihau Japanese who had previously shown no anti-American tendencies went to the aid of the pilot when Japanese domination of the island seemed possible, indicate[s] [the] likelihood that Japanese residents previously believed loyal to the United States may aid Japan if further Japanese attacks appear successful."(D]

This incident provoked great fear that some Japanese Americans would be loyal to Japan if they had to choose. This incident, combined with the intercepts(E) had a profound effect on FDR issuing the Relocation Order in February 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." Another factor in FDR’s decision was his close call with an anarchist bombing in June, 1919.(F)

Japanese Americans were given time to voluntarily move out of the exclusion zone and approximately 5,000 did so before the March 1942 deadline. About 110,000 people of Japanese descent were then interned in relocation camps in the interior of the country.

The Japanese were only evacuated from the West Coast - not from anywhere else in the U.S. Why? Because of the possibility of a Japanese invasion along the West Coast, or more likely, Japanese subs could land a commando team along the West Coast and join up with local Japanese who were loyal to Japan. Nazi subs landed two sabotage teams along the east coast - in Florida and New York in June 1942.(G) All 8 men were captured with six being executed.

Over the next two years, nearly a quarter of the internees left the camps to live and work elsewhere in the United States, outside the exclusion zone. Eventually, some were authorized to return to their hometowns in the exclusion zone under supervision of a sponsoring American family or agency whose loyalty had been assured.(H) Japanese of college age were permitted to leave the camps to attend nearby institutions willing to accept students of Japanese ancestry. By December 31, 1943, there were 2,263 students enrolled.(H)

On Dec. 17, 1944, with Japan’s defeat in sight, U.S. General Henry C. Pratt issued Public Proclamation No. 21, declaring that Japanese American "evacuees" from the West Coast could return to their homes, effective January 2, 1945.(I) The problem was that some had no where to go.

This information is not intended to justify FDR’s Relocation Order, which punished the innocent with the guilty, but gives us greater understanding why the Relocation Order was issued. After the attack on Pearl Harbor and with the Allies losing everywhere, people were in panic mode and not taking any chances.

The internment of Japanese Americans has sometimes been compared to the persecutions of other ethnic minorities in the World War II era but there is no comparison. An estimated 500,000 Volga Germans were rounded up and deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan by Stalin, never to return, with many of them dying en route. In 1944, the Red Army rounded up about 500,000 Chechens and Ingushes for relocation. A third of this population perished in the first year from starvation, cold, and disease.(H)

30. Millions of American servicemen lived in the same type of wooden barracks - equipped with cots, blankets, a light bulb and had to share toilets, bathing and dining facilities. The Japanese had a mattress, bedding and each living section had an oil stove for heat. Each camp had a sewage treatment plant.

Most internees worked at the camp. They planted crops and raised chickens, hogs, and cattle. They made clothes and furniture for themselves. They served as mess hall workers, doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, and teachers. Professionals were paid $19 per month, skilled workers received $16, and nonskilled workers got $12.(J) These camps were guarded by border patrol agents, not the military.

31. The authors of this textbook quote some unnamed journalist who says the relocation camps were ‘uncomfortably close to concentration camps’ and this false statement is then presented as fact. Concentration camps were places of torture, barbarous medical experiments and extermination centers. This unnamed journalist was wrong. The Japanese were basically left alone. The Japanese were in Internment/Relocation camps.

Below are pictures of Nazi Concentration Camps.

.

.

A Japanese soldier beheads a US prisoner on the Bataan Death March.

.

.

An article in the Japan Advertiser on the “Contest to kill 100 Chinese with Sword Extended when both fighters exceed mark - Mukai (left) scores 106 and Noda 105." The headline reads, "Incredible Record.”

.

.

.

.

Baseball game at Manzanar Relocation Camp in 1943.

.

Typical interior scene.

________________________________

“Inevitably, war creates situations which Americans would not countenance in times of peace, such as the internment of men and women who were considered potentially dangerous to America’s national security.”—INS, Department of Justice, 1946 Report (L)

________________________________

.

The Uyano family in their barracks room at the Granada Camp, Colorado.(K)

“The wartime cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union was a temporary arrangement. There had been a history of bad feelings between the two nations ever since the Russian Revolution of 1917. During that revolt, President Wilson had dispatched American Troops to Russia to support anti-Communist resistance. . . .(32) The United States was angered by the nonaggressive pact that Stalin had signed with Hitler (which Hitler had broken),(33) and Stalin was angry that the Allies had not invaded Europe sooner, to take pressure off the Russian front.”(34)

CORRECTIONS:

32. More misleading statements by the authors of this textbook who pick out certain facts and ignore others to give you an inaccurate view of what really happened. Here is the whole story.

Three years after the start of World War One and with millions dead, the Russian government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks (Communists) in November, 1917. The Bolsheviks decided to abandon their allies and quit the war with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. On March 3, 1918, the Communists signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany which was a disaster for the Allied war effort. The Bolshevik’s surrender drastically changed the military/political situation, putting the western Alliance in near panic. The treaty gave Germany control of agricultural and mineral resources in the Ukraine and oil from the Caucasus - which they quickly began shipping to Germany. Germany had one million men in Russia and they were now free to transfer a large number of its troops to France to fight the British, French and newly arriving American forces. The US declared war on Germany in April 1917 but US forces had only begun arriving. Several German divisions had already been transfered to France by the end of 1917, before the treaty had even been signed. An offensive by Germany in France in March 1918, produced impressive gains - gains blamed on Russia for allowing Germany to shift troops to France. In April 1918, a division of German troops had landed in Finland, creating fears they might try to capture the strategic ports of Murmansk, Archangel or capture the Murmansk-Petrograd railroad.

In addition, the Bolsheviks went out of their way to make enemies of the rest of the free world. Indeed, the Bolsheviks were not even considered the legitimate government of Russia. On Jan 19, 1918, Lenin sent in armed Bolshevik troops and forcibly dispersed the popularly elected Constituent Assembly after communist candidates won less then 25% of the seats. A month later the Bolsheviks informed the rest of the world they would not pay back the money loaned to Russia. They owed the US $187 million and other countries millions more. In July 1918, the Bolsheviks executed the Tsar and his wife - and then their 5 children. The Bolsheviks were viewed by the Western democracies as a bunch of thugs and murderers - which is what they were. Also in July, 1918, the last independent newspaper was shut down by Lenin.(A) From here on, only propaganda from the Bolsheviks was allowed to be printed.

The Bolsheviks then turned on their faithful allies, the Czech Legion. This 60,000 man Army was made up of Czech and Slovak nationals who were fighting the Germans and Austro-Hungarian Empire alongside the Russian Army. The Russian government had promised that they would support the creation of a national homeland for them out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire when the allies won the war. After Russia surrendered, the Czech Legion was promised safe passage out of Russia, but Leon Trotsky, under pressure from the Germans, ordered the disarming and arrest of the Czechoslovak Legion. The Czechs vowed to resist all attempts to arrest them. Stalin then agreed to allow the Czechs to leave Russia via Vladivostok. In May 1918 the Bolsheviks initiated a confrontation with the Czechs which turned into full scale war. The Czech Army quickly conquered all major cities in Siberia east of the Ural Mountains all the way to Vladivostok, often with the help of thousands of Russians who feared Communism.

The success of the Czech Legion energized the Allies and allowed them to consider new strategies to defeat Germany. The Bolsheviks were now considered the enemy of the allies and intervention in Russia was now considered necessary for 2 reasons: 1) Help the Czech Legion and other anti-communist forces to overthrow the Bolsheviks and rebuild the Russian Front. This would keep one MILLION German troops tied down in Russia long enough so the US Army could get 4 million soldiers to France and win the war for the Allies. 2) Prevent huge quantities of war material stockpiled in Russian ports from falling into German or Bolshevik hands. Since Russia surrendered, they no longer needed these supplies. The allies feared the Bolsheviks would use this material against their own people or else the Germans would end up getting it. This had to be prevented at all costs.

Britain and France had lost over 2 MILLION men in the war and the allies were not going to allow the Bolshevik surrender to Germany to jeopardize the outcome of the war. Some way had to be found to keep German troops in Russia. They took matters into their own hands.

The Allies landed in Russia at three locations: Siberia (Vladivostok) and North Russia - Archangel and Murmansk. This was a multinational deployment.

Britain took the lead, landing small forces in Murmansk in April 1918 with the bulk of the allied troops arriving in Murmansk and Archangel in August. Britain had 18,400 troops, the US 5,100, Canada and France about 1,000 each with small units from Australia and Serbia. All forces were under British command. This force immediately engaged the Bolshevik army and advanced rapidly. This advance played a definite role in keeping the bulk of German forces in Russia - the objective of the mission. After advancing hundreds of miles, lines were stretched too thin and the force went into defensive positions in October 1918. It’s ironic that the Germans and Russians were at peace with each other, even though Germany still controlled parts of Russia and over 2 MILLION Russian troops had been killed by Germany during the war. Yet the Bolsheviks were eager to attack their former allies in the war.

Thanks to the US Army, Germany was forced to surrender on November 11, 1918, and there was no longer a need to be in Russia. But due to the brutal Russian winter, troops could not be withdrawn til spring. The Bolsheviks launched winter counterattacks against the allies with heavy casualties on both sides. The allies tried to turn the war over to the anti-Bolshevik forces, but they were plagued by mutinies and desertion. The US withdrew its troops by the end of June 1919. Hundreds of Russians wept and said “God bless You” in Russian as the troop transports pulled away.(B) The British withdrew on Sep 20, 1919. About 17,000 Russian civilians - fearful of communism - were also evacuated on British ships.

In Siberia, Japan was to send 12,000 troops, while the US sent 8,000. There were also about 2,000 British, French, Italian and Chinese troops there. The US Army guarded the eastern part of the Trans Siberian Railroad so the Czechs and anti-Bolshevik forces could get armaments and supplies sent from the US. US forces only engaged in combat when attacked. Japan, intent on conquering parts of Siberia, sent in 72,000 troops. Only strong political pressure from the US prevented Japan from carrying out their imperialistic plans. By late September, the Czech Legion began to withdraw to Vladivostok when attacked by the much larger Bolshevik Army.(C) The Czechs no longer wanted to help the anti-Bolshevik forces because of their brutality against the Russian people. The Chechs just wanted out of Russia. The US decided to withdraw its troops in Dec 1919 and the withdrawal was completed by April, 1920. British troops left in Nov 1919. The US and Britain evacuated about 60,000 Czech soldiers and civilians between February and September 1920. Japan refused to leave until 1922. The Far Eastern Republic, a communist buffer state controlled by the Soviet government, publicly thanked the US for its efforts to force Japan’s withdrawal.(D)

All the challengers to the Bolsheviks failed because there was no good alternative to the Bolsheviks. The troops fighting the Bolsheviks did not know what they were fighting FOR, only that they were fighting against the Bolsheviks. The anti-Bolshevik forces often were more brutal to the Russian people then the Bolsheviks were. To the Russian people the Bolsheviks appeared to be the least evil of all the evil people vying for power. This assessment would prove fatal to MILLIONS of Russians in the years to come. There are NO checks and balances in a dictatorship. For most Russians, foreign troops were not an issue - most never met one. The greatest worry for most Russians was not getting shot when one side or the other came looking for "volunteers" for their army.

In conclusion, if there had been no war in Europe, there would have been no intervention in Russia. Had the Bolsheviks (Communists) not quit the war, putting the outcome in mortal peril, there would have no need to go into Russia. This intervention was caused by the actions of the Bolsheviks.

33.The nonaggression pact between Hitler and Stalin was nothing more then a blueprint for conquering and dividing up Eastern Europe. The fact that Hitler broke the treaty doesn’t change the fact that Stalin was as evil and as much of an imperialist as Hitler. Another often forgotten fact is the Soviet Union signed the Neutrality Pact with the Empire of Japan in April 1941. The Soviet Union had taken control of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and attacked Finland. Stalin had starved millions of his own people to death during the 1930s. Stalin killed as many Russians as the Germans did when they invaded Russia.

34. Another example of the authors accepting a claim from Stalin and reporting it as fact. First, the US was fighting a war on two fronts - Japan and Germany - and US forces were divided and inexperienced. The Allies opened a second front against Germany by landing in North Africa on 8 November 1942. The US and its allies destroyed the German Army in North Africa by May, 1943. The Allies invaded Sicily on July, 1943 and conquered the island in just over a month. This victory toppled Italian dictator Benito Mussolini from power and opened the way to the Allied invasion of Italy. All of these actions helped Stalin.

The Allies invaded France as soon as they were able. To have attempted the invasion earlier then June 6, 1944 would have been a colossal strategic blunder by General Eisenhower and would likely have resulted in defeat and prolonged the war in Europe. Stalin knew all this. Eisenhower refused to invade until everything was ready and the Allies had a strong chance of success. Thousands of Americans owe their life to Eisenhower’s refusal to be bullied by Stalin.

..

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Over 3 million Russian soldiers were captured by Germany.

..

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The Czeck Legion captured this armored train from the Bolsheviks.

.

.

..

.

..

.

..

.

.

Bolshevik prisoners under the custody of US troops in Archangel.

.

American Engineers built many block houses for US troops in North Russia.

.

The Canadians made heroic efforts to get their artillery where it was needed.

.,

.

Soldiers of the Czechoslovak Legion killed by Communist forces while fighting their way out of Russia.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Reinforcements of men and equipment moving inland from Omaha Beach.

______________________________________________________________

Page 639 - the Soviet View

After losing more than 17 million people during the war and suffering widespread destruction, the Soviet Union was determined to rebuild in ways that would protect its own interests. One way was to establish satellite nations, countries subject to Soviet domination, on the western borders of the Soviet Union that would serve as a buffer zone against attacks.(36)

CORRECTIONS:

36.This textbook does a good job explaining how the Soviets took control of the countries of eastern Europe. But the Soviet view that they needed “buffer countries” is not really challenged. Here are some opposing thoughts on the “Soviet View.”

Other countries in Europe have been invaded and conquered more then the Soviet Union. Poland is one example. Don’t they deserve “buffer” countries to defend their borders? What about France, twice invaded by Germany. Don’t they deserve “buffer” countries?

Second, the Soviets were as imperialistic as Hitler. In fact, World War II in Europe was started jointly by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939. Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland were divided into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence." As a result, the Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30, 1939 and forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The Soviet Union then took control of the small countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940. In September 1939, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany invaded Poland. The Soviets took control of the eastern part of the country.

Third, losing 17 million people in WW2 was not a big dealconsidering Stalin killed or starved to death more then 17 million of his own people in the 1930s so Stalin could consolidate his control over the people.

.

By the end of WW2, the Soviet Union had one of the most powerful military forces in the world with a population of 170 million. Who was going to invade them? Only the United States had the power, but no one in the US wanted to start a war with the Soviets. By 1946, the US military was completely demobilized. The real reason Stalin conquered eastern Europe was his desire to fulfill the Soviets “Manifest Destiny”- to spread communism around the world.

A. http://www.nato.int/

“Russians go home!”

.

.

.

.

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956

The Hungarian Revolution against the Soviet occupation lasted from 23 October until 10 November 1956. About 5,000 Hungarians were killed and 13,000 wounded. The Soviets used over 1,000 tanks in their assault on freedom fighters.(A)

.

Soviet tanks enter Budapest.

______________________________________________________________

Page 655 - (China enters the Korean War) (37)

“However, Chinese troops poured across the Yalu to take the offensive. The Chinese and the North Koreans pushed the UN forces back into South Korea.”

CORRECTIONS - OMISSION

37. This book should mention that North Korean and Chinese Communists engaged in barbaric war practices against US, South Korean troops and South Korean civilians. These atrocities were a set policy of North Korea and Communist China. Had America pursued the conflict to a clear win instead of a truce there would have been an Asian style Nuremberg trial for many North Korean and Chinese soldiers, their superiors and high ranking government officials.

Hill 303 massacre. Bodies of 41 captured US soldiers massacred by North Korean Army near Waegwan, South Korea, many with their hands still bound.(A)

______________________________________________________________

Page 658 - “The McCarthy era.

”Eventually this second red scare, much like the one that followed World War 1, subsided.(38) But the nation was damaged by the era’s suppression of free speech and open, honest debate.(39)

CORRECTIONS:

38. The authors mock the “Red Scare” following World War 1 but it was more then a scare - it was DEADLY. On January 1, 1919, Vladimir Lenin of the Soviet Union urged the workers of the world to join in revolution against the establishment. Although there were worker revolutions in parts of Europe, none occurred in the US. Unable to start a communist revolution, American Bolsheviks turned to violence.

On May 1, 1919, 36 package bombs were found in the mail at the General Post Office in New York City. Some of the intended targets were Postmaster General Burleson, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, New York Mayor Hylan, New York City Police commissioner Enright and Governor Sproul of Pennsylvania.

On June 2, 1919, explosions occurred in 8 different cities at the same hour which targeted public officials, judges and businessmen. One of the targets was US Attorney General Alexander Palmer. The bomb went off prematurely, killing both bombers. Future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then Secretary of the Navy under Woodrow Wilson, who lived across the street called the police.

Another target was Judge Albert Hayden, whose home was wrecked by a bomb. New York City Judge C. C. Nott’s home was heavily damaged by a bomb. Congressman Leland W. Powers’ home in Massachusetts was badly damaged by a bomb. In Philadelphia, the Rectory of Our Lady of Victory parish was nearly destroyed by a bomb.

As the year wore on, the public demanded Congress do something about the violence. Towards the end of 1919, over 4,000 suspected Bolsheviks/Anarchists were arrested. On Dec. 21, the U.S. deported 249 anarchists to Russia on a US Army transport - guarded by 250 US Army troops.(1)

But the Bolsheviks had one more surprise. At noon, on Sep. 16, 1920, a huge bomb in a horse-drawn wagon left in front of the U.S. Sub-Treasury Building on Wall Street, and opposite the N. Y. Stock Exchange exploded. Thirty nine people died, 200 were wounded and the horse was blown to pieces. No one was ever charged with this crime.

On June, 1919, the Boston home of Judge Albert Hayden was wrecked by a bomb. Hayden was a foe of the Bolsheviks.

.

On Sep. 16, 1920. a huge bomb killed 39 people in front of the U.S. Sub Treasury Building in New York City.

39. This is NOT true and this textbook proves itself wrong. On page 657, there is a reprint of a political cartoon critical of McCarthy, a quote critical of McCarthy by Senator Margarete Chase Smith on the floor of the US Senate and a quote by famed newscaster Edward R. Murrow that was very critical of McCarthy. The truth is there was NO loss of freedom of speech. The Constitution was NOT suspended, People were NOT arrested without charges or taken away by police without ever being seen again as happens in communist countries. Spending two pages on the McCarthy era is overkill, when this Textbook shortchanges more important events.

______________________________________________________________

Page748 - Social Issues

In an explosive 1962 case, the Court ruled that religious prayer in public schools was unconstitutional according to the First Amendment principle of separation of church and state.(40) (Engle v. Vitale)

CORRECTIONS:

40. This statement is an absolute lie! The first Amendment to the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It was used by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in a letter to the Baptist Association in Danbury, Connecticut. In his letter, Jefferson assured the Baptists that the government could not interfere with their denomination’s form of worship because of ‘a wall of separation of church and state.’

This is all Jefferson meant in his letter. Jefferson believed that the government was not to interfere with religious expression as happened in so many other countries. Over the next century and a half, government support of religious institutions was accepted as essential to maintaining a moral society through religious instructions.

The modern interpretation - rather re-interpretation - of the First Amendment to the Constitution is fraudulent since it isn’t even based on the Constitution - rather one sentence in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. This re-interpretation of separation of church and state was 100% politically motivated. It was a deliberate invention to give legal justification for implementing a new moral agenda on the American people by the political left. So what is the moral agenda of the political left? These people reject the morals of Christianity. The objective was to free society of the “constraints” of Judeo Christian ethics, to eliminate Christianity as the basis for law in America and establish a secular, pagan culture in America. This objective has been achieved. The civility and stability that American society used to be is mostly gone. What made American culture so attractive to the rest of the world is gone.

The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should know what they meant!!! There is no evidence whatsoever that the founding fathers wanted to keep Christian morality, ideals or symbols out of public life. The Founders recognized that laws must be based on a moral code - or else laws are meaningless. The moral code that America was founded on was Christianity and the Bible. This fact is undeniable.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue. . .” John Adams - 2nd President of the US.

Source: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875, Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)

http://memory.loc.gov/

______________________________________________________________

Page 750 - (The effects of Johnson’s anti-poverty programs)

“Nevertheless, the number of Americans living in poverty in the United States was cut in half during the 1960s and early 1970s.(41)

CORRECTIONS:

41.More false information from this biased textbook. In 1950, the poverty rate was 32.2 percent, fell to 22.2% by 1960, 17.3% in 1965 and 12.6% by 1970. The rate has never been lower then 11.1% in 1973.[A] The final 11% are the people who are largely unemployable (druggies, bums, etc.) Johnson’s “war” on poverty only went into effect in 1965, and there is little evidence that LBJ’s programs had anything to do with the poverty rate falling from 17.3% in 1965 to 11.1% in 1973. Fact is, the poverty rate would have continued to decline from 1965 to 1973 for the same reason it declined from 1950 to 1965 - an expanding American economy, good paying jobs, affordable housing in neighborhoods that hadn’t been turned into ghettos yet, a graduated income tax where low income people paid little if any tax and a superb public educational system that liberals hadn’t yet destroyed. No matter how much money the federal government spends on fighting poverty, the rate has never gone below 11.1 percent.

Source:

A. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States: The twentieth century by Stanley L. Engerman, Robert E. Gallman

______________________________________________________________

Page 773 - (Latinos fight for change)

“At the same time, new political groups formed to support Latino interests. In Texas, Jose Angel Gutierrez spearheaded the formation of the political party La Raza Unida in 1970. This new party worked for better housing and jobs, and also backed Latino political candidates.”(42)

“Yet a different approach was taken by Reies Lopez Tijerina, who argued that the Anglo culture had stolen the Chicanos’ land and heritage. To call attention to broken treaties, his Alianza Federal de Mercedes (“Federal Alliance of Land Grants”) marched on the New Mexico state capital, Santa Fe, in 1966.(43) At about the same time, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) began providing legal aid to help Mexican Americans defend their rights.”(44)

CORRECTIONS:

42. La Raza Unida Party (RUP) is a militant, anti-American hate group which was established in 1970 at a meeting of 300 Mexican-Americans in Crystal City, Texas by José Ángel Gutiérrez and Mario Compean. La Raza Unida simply means “The Race United.”

La Raza Unida should not be confused with NCLR - National Council of La Raza - which is a different group, although they both have many similar objectives.

In 1972 the First La Raza Unida Party (RUP) National Convention was held and Gutierrez was elected as National Chair of the Party. RUP rejected both the Republican and Democratic Party and created an independent political movement to advance their agenda. Initially they had some successes, but many Mexican Americans refused to run under the RUP banner. In 1978, RUP did poorly at the polls.

While La Raza Unida has engaged in legitimate civil rights issues, its true agenda was revealed at the 1980 convention. RUP declared a policy of Revolutionary Nationalism and the eventual takeover of what they refer to as Aztlan, which is composed of five southwestern states; California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. RUP wrongly believes that the southwest US was stolen from Mexico.(1)

Gutierrez, regarded as the movement’s leader, has one objective: Conquer the southwest US and make it a Mestizo nation. In a 1999 interview, he stated:

Q: Does the concept of Aztlán have anything to do with Mexico?

A: Aztlán is one half of the one Mexico that we need to build. This is the Mexico on the other side, north of the Rio Grande, El Rio Bravo. We have been dismembered since 1826 in Texas, and 1848 in the rest of the Southwest. And then after 1853 in La Mesia, from Tucson to the border of California. So the mission of Aztlán is to put back together the original land where our ancestors came from. So our movement, then, has everything to do with the Mexico that exists. And that is, to make it bigger, to return it to its original homeland size.(2)

Q: What relevance does the concept of the Aztlán have for the year 2000 and beyond? Is it a practical concept?

A: Our numbers now are such that we are critical mass throughout the nation. Depending on what state you’re in, we’re on the verge of already being a majority minority. In some places, a majority, and in years to come, probably about one quarter of the entire United States population. We will exercise our rights, which include political sovereignty. So Aztlán will become a reality. It is not our fault that whites don’t make babies, and blacks are not growing in sufficient numbers, and there’s no other groups with such a goal to put their homeland back together again. We do. Those numbers will make it possible. I believe that in the next few years, we will see an irredentists movement, beyond assimilation, beyond integration, beyond separatism, to putting Mexico back together as one. That's Irredentism. One Mexico, one nation.(2)

.

Jose Angel Gutierrez, ‘professor’ at the University of Texas at Arlington and founder of La Raza:“The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in this land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years, and we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights! What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male! This is our homeland. We cannot, we will not, and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not im-mi-grants that came from another country to another country; we are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. [laughter] The explosion is in our population.” Audio clip of Gutierrez(4)

August 1970 (5)

For all the people who support the creation of Aztlan and uniting with Mexico here are some questions: Most Mexicans come to the US to escape the poverty and dysfunctional Mexican society. Why would Mexicans want to go back to what they escaped from? America is still a good place to live. That’s why Mexicans keep coming to the US. It’s doubtful that a majority of Mexicans would want to live in Aztlan. Soon Aztlan would be as dysfunctional as the rest of Mexico. Then where would Mexicans flee too?

Gutierrez and others like him somehow believe if you have Indian blood in you - Mestizos - you are some sort of superior human who doesn’t have to obey the border between the US and Mexico. This is all a scam for two reasons: First, Gutierrez is only attacking the border with the US, not other countries in Central America, and second, the Indians Gutierrez is talking about NEVER inhabited US territory. Being part Indian doesn’t make you superior or above the law. It means you're part indian.

More questions for the scammers: Why does everyone in this movement have Spanish names? Can you prove you are part Indian? What about Americans who are part Indian? Besides, there is no rule on how long someone has to live in a place before they become a ‘native.’ Most Americans have been here over 100 years and many over 200 years. That’s long enough to be a native. We’re staying. YOU can leave.

It’s OBVIOUS that RUP is only using the Indians as an excuse to give moral justification to their desire to reconquer the southwest US for Mexico. Many Mexicans still cannot accept the fact their big army lost wars to Texas in 1836 and then the US in 1846 - wars Mexico was certain they would win. Mexico was responsible for starting both wars!(1) With this type of imperialistic mindset, it is difficult to see how armed conflict can be avoided to stop this evil movement. What would trigger this war is anyone’s guess.

La Raza Unida believes that they should only vote for Mexican Americans. This is pure racism and hatemongering.

A number of charter schools are in existence that support, at least indirectly, this anti-American attitude. One example is La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles which is supported by National Council of La Raza and engages in ‘Indigenous Education’: “Semillas students receive instruction in three languages: English, Spanish, and Nahuatl (the indigenous language of Mexico)...” “HUEHUETLAMACHILISTLE, in Nahuatl, is how Semillas refers to Aztec cultural, environmental, historic and cosmic knowledge systems. Huehuetlamachilistle names the cosmovision or as best translated into English the wisdom about the universe and the relations among all that exists within it as experienced over time by Peoples indigenous to North America.” “In addition to a core expertise on Aztec culture, our educators have learned from the elders and oral traditions of the Haudenosaunee Confederation of Nations, the Zuni Pueblo, the Quiche Maya, and the Inca of Ecuador, all of which have struggled to straddle the challenge of ancient memory and modern reality.”(3)

Nahuati was the Aztec language, not Mexico’s. They seem to have forgotten that it was the Spanish who destroyed the Aztec, Mayan and Inca empires.

La Raza Unida opposed Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 had this introduction on the ballot: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.” Proposition 187 passed by 59 to 41 percent but was eventually declared unconstitutional by liberal judges after being challenged in court by La Raza and the morally clueless Clinton administration. Clinton was more interested in getting more voters for the Democratic party then doing what was right.

In a free country, you are always going to have evil people taking up misguided causes. La Raza Unida, like the KKK, must be exposed for the evil goals they are advancing. La Raza Unida supporters are nothing more than a bunch of thugs promoting confrontations and violence with law abiding Americans. Americans need to prepare themselves for any possibility.

It's a game - it's a game of power - who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that command armies. We're in a state of war. This Proposition 187 is a declaration of war against the Latino/Chicano community of this country. They know the demographics. They know that history and time is on our side. As one community, as one people, as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What this means is a transfer of power. It means control."Armando Navarro, member of La Raza Unida, Prof. Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187, UC Riverside, 1/1995(6)

.

.

.

“We recognize that the barriers to our integrating into this society and to uplifting ourselves is the gringo. The gringo whose put the barriers who makes us - you know - drop out of school, who keeps us in bad health, who doesn’t pay us good wages, who prohibits our union and so on and so on and so on. So until we get rid of those elements, we’re not going to progress, we’re not going to be free. So yes, the gringo must go.” Jose Angel Gutierrez from PBS Chicanos! Documentary in 1996.(8)

.

.

.

Wonder what continent the Spanish came from? Supporting a mass murderer like Che Guevara?

______________________________________________________________

43. Another example of this textbook allowing a critic to make inflammatory charges against America and reporting it as if it was a fact - which it isn’t. Tijerina should NOT be portrayed as a civil rights leader. He was, in truth, a violent, hate filled racist who was sentenced to prison for his roles in several violent crimes. Tijerina used land claims to inflame ethnic hatred because his true agenda was to drive all “Anglos” back to Europe and return the Southwest U.S. back to Mexico.(A) Basing his beliefs on one-sided research and hearsay, he became a domestic terrorist.

Tijerina made many racist generalizations about “anglos” and pursued a life long vendetta against “Anglos” who had done nothing wrong. In fact, Tijerina’s diatribes against Anglo Americans is eerily similar to Hitler blaming all of Germany’s problems on the Jews.

Tijerina’s claim that Anglo culture stole the Chicanos’ heritage is a phony argument. No other ethnic group has make these bogus claims. Millions of people from Germany, Poland, Italy, Norway and many other countries have come to America, learned English, and did not feel ‘oppressed” or “Culturally deprived.” Have Anglos ever told Mexican Americans they can’t eat Mexican food? Have Mexican Americans been told they can’t do the Mexican Hat Dance? Did Congress outlaw Mariachi Music? Have US history books refused to teach students about Mexican America military leaders, politicians and civil rights leaders? Did Congress ever pass a law saying you couldn’t speak Spanish in America? Obviously everyone who lives in America, including Mexicans, are expected to learn English. This is as it should be, otherwise we will be divided by language. This is why the Founding Fathers adopted our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1782 - "Out of many, One." The obvious truth is Chicano heritage has NOT been stolen. In his book, Tijerina claims Mexican Americans are oppressed. This is a lie. Mexican Americans are not oppressed. They may think they are because of being fed all these lies by Tijerina and other hate filled leaders in the Mexican American Community.

Reies Lopez Tijerina (DD)

On 5 June 1967, Tijerina led about 20 heavily armed men in a raid on the Rio Arriba County Courthouse where they attempted to make a citizen’s arrest of the County's district attorney but he had left the Courthouse earlier.(B) A state police officer and a jailer, Eulogio Salazar, were shot and a sheriff’s deputy and a reporter were taken hostage. Another guard lost several teeth when punched in the face by one of Tijerina’s “warriors” as he called them.(C) Unbelievably, Tijerina took his 18 year old daughter Rosita and his two sons, 13 year old Daniel and older son David on his “mission.”(D) Eulogio Salazar later testified at a preliminary hearing that he was shot through the cheek as he jumped out a court house window by Tijerina. Another couple of inches and Tijerina would have shot Salazar in the head and possibly killed him. The case never went to trial. On Jan. 2, 1968, Salazar was abducted and beaten to death.(E)(F)(G) Salazar’s death was intended to silence a key witness and to intimidate all others. It worked. No one was ever charged with Salazar’s murder. Not surprisingly, Tijerina had an alibi - and he knows who did it. It was the CIA and FBI who ordered the death of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy and Eulogio Salazar.(H)

Tijerina was also suspected of involvement in an arson attack on a military installation, but was never charged.(I) The racist Tijerina calls children of mixed marriages - “anglos” and Mexicans - “coyotes.”(J) This textbook doesn’t bother to tell any of this.

Rio Arriba County Courthouse

As for the charge of Mexican land being stolen, the roots of this conflict started in 1848, when the U.S. and Mexico ratified different versions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican American War. The initial treaty was negotiated by Nicholas Trist for the United States and special commissioners representing the collapsed government of Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on February 2, 1848 near Mexico City and sent to Washington for ratification. The U.S. Senate deleted Article X and made other changes to the treaty before it was ratified on 10 March 1848. Mexico was not happy about the changes and negotiated the Protocol of Querétaro. Mexico ratified the amended Treaty along with the Protocol which basically returned the Treaty to it’s original wording. The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Protocol of Querétaro and was not obligated to abide by it. In addition, the treaty provided no standard for validation of land grants. These disputes over the Treaty and land grants continues to this day.

The key disagreement with the Treaty was over Article X which was deleted by the U.S. for two very good reasons:

1) Article X forced Texas to go back to boundaries that existed in March, 1836. Since Mexico’s intentions was to conquer Texas again, they saw no need to negotiate with Texas over land grants or on anything else. So Mexico brought this situation on themselves by their obstinate refusal to negotiate with Texas and later the U.S. Land boundaries were now 10 years old and many boundaries had changed. Never the less, Texas on it’s own instituted a program of recognizing Spanish/Mexican land grants in the state.

2) Article VIII already bound the U.S. to recognize private property rights of Mexicans whose property now was in the U.S., so what was Mexico’s intentions for having Article X in the initial treaty? Article X bound the U.S. to recognize massive communal land grants in New Mexico. Between 1837 and 1848, Manuel Armijo, the last Mexican governor of New Mexico gave away over half of the 31 MILLION acres of land granted to all Mexicans under Spain and Mexico.(K) These huge land grants violated Mexican law and should never have been granted!(L) The U.S. correctly viewed Article X as a back door method by Mexico of maintaining Mexican hold on vast amounts of land that now belonged to the U.S. Article 12 of the Treaty states the U.S. will pay Mexico $15 million for the land transfered to the U.S. - not the land minus the land grants. The U.S. had the right, as the owner of ALL the land to limit grant sizes as was done when the U.S. purchased Florida. Mexico knowingly violated their own laws with these huge land grants - and then expected the U.S. to recognize these grants. While the U.S. was bound to honor private property of individual Mexicans, the U.S. had no legal or moral obligation to recognize Mexican claims to vast amounts of land which often had no Mexicans there. U.S. Secretary of State John M. Clayton made it clear the U.S. viewed article X as a cheating tool by Mexico: “Could it however reasonably be expected that this government, in addition to the treasure and blood expended in prosecuting the war, would engage to pay fifteen millions of dollars for lands, the title to the most valuable part of which had been extinguished?”(M) Mexico lost the war. The U.S. could have kicked out all the Mexicans and sent them back to Mexico but was trying to be fair.

Not only were these huge grants illegal under Mexican law, but the grantees never fulfilled their obligations in order to claim possession of many grants in northern New Mexico. All of these massive grants were in Indian controlled territory(N) and had never been permanently occupied. They were always run off by Indian attacks. If grantees didn’t settle the grant after it was granted due to Indian attacks or abandoned their settlements due to Indians raids, the grant was NOT considered valid under Spanish/Mexican law. Under Spanish/Mexican law, the most important aspect of the validity of a land grant was continuous occupation.(O)

Nearly all of the critics who condemn America over Mexican land claims are intellectually dishonest. The U.S. government approved grants that should not have been approved and approved grants for far more acreage then they should have been - but these critics don’t care about that. They only care when they believe Mexicans were cheated out of land.

Determining the validity of some claims was difficult and some critics say the US was hyper legal with respect to approving land claims in New Mexico but this is not correct. No one could expect the U.S. to assume every Mexican who claimed land had a valid title. There had to be a mechanism for determining the legality of title to millions of acres of land made by Spanish and Mexican governments over some 150 years. Mexico had no authority to violate our Constitution and force it’s laws on us.

As fraud became more of a problem, Congress created The Court of Private Land Claims (CPLC) in 1891. The CPLC was charged with addressing all unresolved land claims in New Mexico, California and other states. The CPLC finished its work in 1904. The CPLC discovered most of the eleven forgeries of land grant documents, including the notorious Peralta-Reavis grant request for 12 MILLION acres.(P) But the CPLC didn’t get the chance to examine the Ramon Vigil Grant. This grant of 31,802 acres was confirmed by Congess on June 1860. In the 1990s, historian Marjorie Bell Chambers (1923-2006) proved that the grant document was a forgery and the grant should never have been approved.(Q)

It’s interesting that the claims of Mexican land grants being stolen occurred primarily in New Mexico, not California, Florida or the Louisiana Purchase. Why? These massive land grants were done only in New Mexico and was the root cause of most of the disputes.(R) It was apparent that these massive community grants were being used as a cheating tool by Mexico - trying to maintain hold of huge amounts of land - through the Protocol of Querétaro - that now belonged to the U.S. Ultimately, the U.S. government decided the simplest and fairest way to deal with a lot of these huge amounts of claimed Community land was to turn them into national forests for all to enjoy. The demand for land or monetary compensation is interesting since all the land Mexican Americans are demanding compensation for used to be Indian land.

An exhaustive investigation into New Mexico land grant issues by the GAO - completed in 2004 - found that the U.S. government did NOT violate treaty obligations with land grant claimants.(S) Many of the problems in this process were caused by Spanish/Mexican officials who gave out land grants with vague, overlapping and sometimes no boundaries. Some titles didn’t mention all the people in the grant - another opportunity for fraud. Unlike Florida and the Louisiana Purchase, where claimants had to pay the cost of the land survey, the US financed survey costs from 1854 to 1862, when the money was shifted to the war effort(QQ). As reports of boundary fraud and forgeries became a concern, Congress, in July 1876, required land claimants to pay the full cost of a land survey.(T) Also, Many Mexican claim holders waited many years before submitting their claims for approval.

Spain and Mexico made a total of 295 land grants in New Mexico - 141 Individual and 154 Community land claims.(U) A total of 105, or 68% of the Community land grants were approved by the US government, totalling 5.96 MILLION acres, or 63.5% of the acreage claimed.(V) Combining both Individual and Community land grants, the US government awarded 55% of the land claimed by Mexicans in New Mexico. Critics claim only 24% of claimed acreage was approved in New Mexico(W) versus 73% in California,(X) asserting that the disparity in the approval rate showed defective procedures were used in New Mexico. This assertion is wrong for four reasons: (1) a large amount of land critics count is located outside of New Mexico;(Y) (2) critics count claims that were never pursued or withdrawn;(Z) (3) acreage was “double-counted” because they were claimed by more then one person;(Y) (4) some claimants greatly exaggerated the size of their claim.(Y)(AA)

Individuals living on Community land grants that were rejected by the government were allowed to keep their individual home lots (160 acres) under the small-holding claims provision of the 1891 Act. The Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management estimates about 73,000 acres of land was awarded through small-holding claims.(BB)

Critics of the confirmation process condemn most judicial rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. But they had their own frustrations. Justice Brewer, delivering the Court’s decision on Ely's Administrator v. United States, (1898) stated: “Few cases presented to this Court are more perplexing than those involving Mexican grants. The changes in the governing power as well as in the form of government were so frequent, there is so much indefiniteness and lack of precision in the language of the statutes and ordinances, and the modes of procedure were in so many respects essentially different from those to which we are accustomed, that it is often quite difficult to determine whether an alleged grant was made by officers who at the time were authorized to act for the government, and was consummated according to the forms of procedure then recognized as essential.”(CC)

44. MALDEF, short for Mexican American Legal Defense Fund was founded in 1968. It is an anti-American hate group masquerading as a civil rights organization. Although MALDEF has engaged in some legitimate civil rights cases, this is merely a cover for a sinister agenda.

MALDEF supports “rights” for illegal aliens that they are NOT entitled too because they are here ILLEGALLY. MALDEF supports taxpayer funding for social services for illegal immigrants. MALDEF opposed - sometimes violently - Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 had this introduction on the ballot: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.” Proposition 187 passed by 59 to 41 percent but was eventually declared unconstitutional by liberal judges after being challenged in court by MALDEF and the morally clueless Clinton administration. Clinton was more interested in getting more voters for the democratic party then in doing what was right.

MALDEF opposes enforcement of “E-Verify” to determine if a job applicant is in the US illegally.(1)

MALDEF opposed the bipartisan SAVE Act bill in Congress in 2007 (H.R. 4088 in the House and S. 2368 in the Senate). This bill would have secured America's borders by adding 10,000 border patrol agents, require all US employers to use “E-Verify” to determine if you are in the country legally and expanded the 287(g) program, in which local police are trained to enforce federal immigration laws when the situation arrises in the normal performance of their duties.(2)

Even though the integrity of the voting system is essential to a democracy, MALDEF has opposed all laws that would require proof of identification at the polls. A case in point was Proposition 200, the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act." This was an Arizona state initiative, passed in 2004 that requires persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and for voters to present a photo identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place.(3)

MALDEF supports Mexico dumping 55,000 children into the US and files lawsuits against cities that refuses to accept all these illegals. These children should be sent back to their countries of origin - to their parents.(4)

MALDEF pushed for California to pass the AB540 law that allows reduced tuition for students who are illegal aliens.(5)

For nearly 200 years, immigrants learned English and didn’t demand special accommodations. MALDEF opposes making English the official language of the US.(6)

MALDEF supports amnesty for the 10-12 MILLION illegals now in the country, even though amnesty would result in 20 to 40 million more relatives coming into our country.(7)

MALDEF was co-founded by two Mexican Americans in 1968: Mario Obledo, who died in 2010 and Pedro Tijerina, who died in 2003. Statements by Obledo shows how racist he was. Obledo made statements about California becoming a "Hispanic state" at least twice, during an appearance on Ray Briem's talk radio show in May or June of 1998, and again on the Tom Leykis' talk radio show:

Obledo: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state."

Caller: "You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn't like it, they should leave. Did you say that?"

Obledo: "I did. They ought to go back to Europe."(8)

The hypocrisy of these racist Mexicans is amazing. They want whites to go back to Europe because they don’t belong here, but ignore blacks, asians - and themselves. To be consistent, the Spanish should go back to Europe too.

MALDEF believes the southwest US historically belongs to Mexico. This is NOT true. The Southwest US historically belonged to the Indians. Mexico stole this land from the Indians and then lost this land to the US when Mexico attacked the US to start the Mexican American War of 1846 - a war Mexico was certain they would win.(9)

Obledo also proved his xenophobic racism at the 1984 Democratic National Convention when he threatened to boycott voting to protest the candidacy of Walter Mondale, declaring “I am a Democrat and I love may party, but I love my (Mexican) community more!”(10)

Obledo was also an enemy of free speech. With the waves of illegals entering California, a sign was erected at Blythe, California near the Arizona border which said “Welcome to California, the Illegal Immigrant State.” This obvious truth offended Obledo who “vowed to burn or deface the sign." He then issued a press release that said on Sat, June 27, 1998 the billboard would be set on fire. The local sheriff telephoned Obledo, not to warn him against committing a criminal act, but to warn him of a nearby natural gas plant that might explode. Delighted at this escalation, Obledo spoke to the Sacramento Bee of an explosion that would annihilate Blythe. But 4 days before the scheduled climax, the billboard company took the sign down, under pressure from advertisers.(11)(12)

Incredibly, Obledo received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998 by the clueless Bill Clinton.

Obledo and like minded scoundrels represent a new type of profoundly brainwashed people who express hatred for America in general and especially white Americans, who they label “Anglos” or “Gringos.” These people are profoundly wrong in their understanding of US history. These people have blinded themselves due to their self righteous, hateful attitude.

Obledo and his like are really traitors who equate assimilation into America with subordination and inferiority. People who leave their native lands behind to assimilate into America, as over 70 million have done since 1790, are now viewed as sell outs who have betrayed their true cultural identity. These traitor immigrants come here with demands. They want catered to in their own language. They demand affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture. The amazing thing about these immigrants who think they are better then Americans is that they come from countries that are dysfunctional - mostly Mexico. IF MEXICO IS SO WONDERFUL, WHY ARE YOU HERE??? Is it because you want to escape political turmoil, murderous drug cartels, widespread poverty, a disastrous economic system, bad health care and poor education? Mexico’s contributions to scientific, social and economic advancements are nil. The US saved the world in World Wars One and Two and the Cold War. Mexico contributions were nil. Why aren’t millions of people going TO Mexico, instead of LEAVING Mexico? Who would want the US become like Mexico?

The Founding Fathers knew that immigrants from many different countries would be coming to America. This is why they adopted our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1782 - "Out of many, one." America had to have areas of conformity, or else we would not have a unified nation. These racist immigrants, mostly Mexicans, want to destroy, not assimilate.

Tijerina grew up in Laredo, Texas and was not a victim of prejudice. In fact, when Tijerina needed his high school diploma to get into college, the principal, J. W. Nixon, told him: “Pete, if you pass the college entrance exam to Texas, I’ll give you your diploma.” Tijerina passed and got his high school diploma.(13)

During World War 2, as the only Mexican American in his company, Tijerina said his ethnicity was never a concern, as he was surrounded by many different ethnicities from all over the country.(13) By the 1950s, Tijerina began to see everything from a racial-ethnic perspective - and became obsessed that prejudice was everywhere.

“In August 1964, Johnson made a dramatic announcement: North Vietnamese torpedo boats had attacked United States destroyers in the international waters of the Gulf of Tonkin, 30 miles from North Vietnam. This announcement would change the course of the war.

Although details were sketchy, it was later shown that the attacks did not occur.”(45)

CORRECTION:

45. Another false statement by this textbook. Here’s the truth. There were 2 incidents. The first one occurred, the second did not.

The first one occurred on August 2, 1964, when the US Destroyer Maddox intercepted enemy communications reporting North Vietnamese vessels getting under way, possibly intent on attacking the destroyer. The Maddox was in international waters. At 1440 hours (2:40pm), the destroyer detected three North Vietnamese patrol boats approaching her position at high speed. The Captain, John J. Herrick ordered gun crews to open fire if the vessels closed to within 10,000 yards of the destroyer, and at about 1505 hours, three 5-inch shots were fired across the bow of the closest boat. The first torpedo boat then launched a torpedo and veered away. A second boat then launched two torpedos at the destroyer but was hit by gunfire from the Maddox. The first vessel then launched a second torpedo and opened fire with her 14.5-mm guns, but shell fire from the Maddox hit that boat. Then four fighter jets from the Aircraft Carrier USS Ticonderoga attacked the enemy vessels leaving two boats damaged.

Two days later, on August 4, Maddox returned to the area, supported by the destroyer USS Turner Joy. On the morning of 4 August, U.S. intelligence intercepted a report indicating North Vietnam intended to conduct offensive operations in the Gulf of Tonkin. In contrast to the clear conditions two days earlier, bad weather reduced visibility and increased wave heights to six feet. In addition to the difficult detection conditions, the Maddox's SPS-40 long-range air-search radar and the Turner Joy's SPG-53 fire-control radar were both inoperative.

The Maddox nevertheless reported at 2040 that she was tracking unidentified vessels. The approaching vessels seemed to come at the ships from multiple directions. Targets would appear - and then disappear. Over the next three hours, the two ships repeatedly maneuvered at high speeds to evade perceived enemy boat attacks. The destroyers fired over 350 shells at false targets. Air support was called in.

Herrick questioned his crew and reviewed the preceding hours' events. He sent a highest priority message to Honolulu, which was received in Washington at 1327 on 4 August, declaring his doubts: "Review of action makes many reported contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects on radar and overeager sonar men may have accounted for many reports. No actual visual sightings by MADDOX. Suggest complete evaluation before any further action taken."

One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night was squadron commander James Stockdale, who became famous later as a POW and then Ross Perot's vice presidential candidate. "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets -- there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."

Had the August 2 attack not taken place, it is likely that Johnson would not have jumped to conclusions and ordered air strikes against North Vietnam. But with the first attack confirmed, Johnson unwisely assumed the second one on Aug 4 had occurred as well. President Johnson then gave this televised message to the nation: "The initial attack on the destroyer Maddox, on August 2, was repeated today by a number of hostile vessels attacking two U.S. destroyers with torpedoes…. Air action is now in execution against gunboats and certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam which have been used in these hostile operations."

Why was the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin in the first place? By 1958, North Vietnam’s infiltration into the South with men and material was known. By 1964, South Vietnam was losing its fight against Communist Viet Cong guerrillas, which received military support from the north. The South then began Commando raids against North Vietnamese coastal installations in retaliation. The US Navy was attempting to determine the extent of North Vietnam's maritime infiltration into the South and to identify the North's coastal defenses so that the US could better support South Vietnam's commando operations against the North.

Sources:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin

http://www.historynet.com/case-closed-the-gulf-of-tonkin-incident.htm

....

.

.

.

.

John J. Herrick

.

USS Maddox

.

.

.

James Stockdale

.

.

.

.

Lyndon Johnson

______________________________________________________________

Page 797 -

“Earlier in 1963, Kennedy’s Undersecretary of State, U. Alexis Johnson, was speaking before the Economic Club of Detroit: ‘. . . Why is [southeast Asia] desirable, and why is it important? First, it provides a lush climate, fertile soil, rich natural resources, a relatively sparse population in most areas and room to expand. . . .’

This is not the language that was used by President Kennedy in his explanations to the American public. He talked of Communism and freedom. In a news conference February 14, 1962 he said: ‘Yes, as you know, the U.S. for more than a decade has been assisting the government, people of Vietnam, to maintain their independence.’” - Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States.

CORRECTION: This quote on page 797 is from A Peoples History of the United States by Howard Zinn, first published in 1980. Zinn’s books are filled with deliberate lies, propaganda and half-truths. Zinn only gives you one side of a story because his goal is to brainwash readers - not inform them. Even the socialist magazine Dissent has bashed Zinn over his phony history book.(1) As a historian, Howard Zinn is a complete fraud.

In this instance, Zinn picks out part of a paragraph of Alexis Johnson’s speech in order to mislead the reader into believeing that the US wanted control over Southeast Asia to exploit it’s resources. The truth is that Johnson was concerned about the communist desire to conquer Southeast Asia for it’s resources and impose a communist dictatorship on its people. Here is the ENTIRE paragraph and additional excerpts from Alexis Johnsons speech that show his real fear was communist imperialism:

“What is the attraction that Southeast Asia has exerted for centuries on the great powers flanking it on all sides? Why is it desirable, and why is it important? First, it provides a lush climate, fertile soil, rich natural resources, a relatively sparse population in most areas, and room to expand. The countries of Southeast Asia produce rich exportable surpluses such as rice, rubber, teak, corn, tin, spices, oil, and many others. It is especially attractive to Communist China, with its burgeoning population and its food shortages.”

"Although still thinly populated for the most part, the human resources of this area are considerable and growing. Taken together, the peoples of Southeast Asia represent an important segment of the free world and a target of prime importance to Communist imperialism.”

"As my colleague Under Secretary Averell Harriman said recently, 'I don't know how you can distinguish between Chinese communism and Chinese imperialism. Chinese communism and all communism is imperialist.'”

"Even before World War II, Communist parties of varying strengths existed in all Southeast Asian countries, from Burma to the Philippines. After the war the signal was given for armed Communist-led uprisings, and these occurred in Burma, Indonesia, Malaya, Indochina, and the Philippines. Even Thailand, the one country in Southeast Asia that had not known colonial rule, was threatened. By 1952 the revolts were crushed in all but Malaya and Indochina. It took the British and the new Malay Federation until 1958 to quell Communist guerrilla forces there. . .”

"The efforts of some powers following World War II to restore colonial rule along the pre-war pattern permitted the Communists more effectively to wave the banner of anticolonialism and, for example, through Ho Chi Minh, at that time largely to capture the nationalist movement in Viet-Nam.”

“. . . All of us who were at Geneva in 1954 recognized that Communist domination of the Red River Delta of North Viet-Nam would make it much more difficult to defend the remaining areas. This has been true. However, for the Communists to advance any further in the area would render the defense problem very much more difficult, if not well-nigh impossible. This is why the valiant struggle now being waged in South Viet-Nam has implications far beyond the borders of that troubled country.

"Our massive assistance to free Viet-Nam is designed to avoid just such a catastrophe."

“During the Tet Offensive, Communists were uncommonly(46) brutal, slaughtering anyone they labeled an enemy, including minor officials, teachers, and doctors. While the Communists had control of Hue, they ordered all civil servants, military personnel, and those who had worked for the Americans to report to special locations. Of those who obeyed, some 3,000 to 5,000 were killed. Their bodies were found in mass graves after American and South Vietnamese forces retook the city.”

CORRECTIONS;

46. Uncommonly???? Being brutal is what communists have been known for since millions were killed or starved to death in Russia in the 1930s. Communists have slaughtered literally MILLIONS of citizens they didn’t like - in the Soviet Union, Communist China, Eastern Europe, etc.

Read about the torture of our prisoners of war. Brutal and inhuman is what communists have always been known for.

http://www.legion.org/magazine/217188/when-hell-was-session

Read the book: Surviving Hell: A POW’S Journey by Leo Thorsness

.

.

.

.

Howard Zinn - a total fraud

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U. Alexis Johnson

______________________________________________________________

Page 806 - The Free Speech Movement

"Student activism led to confrontation at the University of California at Berkeley in Septembral 1964. Students became angry when the university administration refused to allow them to distribute civil right leaflets outside the main gate of the campus.

The students, who had fought for equal rights in the South, argued that their right to free speech was being challenged. They resisted the university’s effort to restrict their political activity.(47) When police came to arrest one of their leaders, students surrounded the police car and prevented it from moving. The free speech movement was underway.

The university administration tried to find a compromise, but then its governing board stepped in. The board had the final word over university policy. It decided to hold student leaders responsible for their actions and filed charges against some of them.

On december 2, 1964, thousands of irate students took over the university administration building. That night police moved in. They arrested more than 700 students. Other students, supported by some faculty members, went on strike. They stopped attending classes to show their support for the free speech demonstrators.”

CORRECTIONS;

47.This is misleading information. To describe this as the “Free Speech Movement” implies that there wasn’t free speech on College campuses. This is not true. There has always been free speech on colleges and college libraries have books of every political persuasion.

The University of California at Berkeley had a policy in place that students must keep their political activities off campus, fearing on-campus political activities would be disruptive to a learning environment. Virtually every business in America has a similar ban: Keep you political/religious activities outside of work. The so called Free Speech Movement protested this ban on on-campus political activities.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Students supporting the “Free Speech Movement” stand and sit on a police car while one of their leaders is interviewed by the local media.

______________________________________________________________

Page 816 - Southeast Asia After The War

“The suffering of the Cambodian people was one of the most tragic effects of the war in Vietnam.(48) In April 1975, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge, a force of Communists led by the fanatical Pol Pot.In five years of fighting, Cambodia had already suffered as many as a half million civilian causalities, mostly by American bombs.(49) Worse was to come. The Khmer rouge in effect declared war on anyone “tainted” with Western ways, and they killed as many as 1.5 million Cambodians - a quarter of the population. Many were shot, while the rest died of starvation, from disease, from mistreatment in labor camps, or on forced marches.”

CORRECTIONS:

48. America is NOT responsible for the suffering of the Cambodian people during the Vietnam War. North Vietnam is 100% responsible. Bullied by N. Vietnam and Communist China, North Vietnam invaded and occupied large sections of eastern Cambodia from 1965 onwards for use as military bases from which to launch attacks on U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. The US then bombed the North Vietnamese who were in Cambodia illegally.

49. An absolute lie. Because of North Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia’s territory, a majority of Cambodians favored the US. There were large anti-Vietnamese riots in 1970 which propelled Lon Nol, a pro western leader to take control of the government from Prince Sihanouk. Lon Nol demanded foreign troops get out of Cambodia. North Vietnam’s response was to try to conquer the entire country, but failed with the help of US aerial bombing. Sihanouk then joined forces with communist Pol Pot and started a civil war against the Lon Nol government. America began bombing these communist troops. There were also up to 40,000 North Vietnamese troops and many supply depots in lightly populated eastern Cambodia which the US bombed. Again, the targets were military, not civilian. These people were combatants, NOT civilians.

The half million civilians supposedly killed by US bombs is propaganda. The US would have had to carpet bomb cities to kill this many civilians, which we obviously didn’t do. So how do people come up with these high number of civilian deaths? There have been numerous studies on this subject and the numbers go all over the place. Why? Because no one really knows, but here’s what we do know: The US targeted military targets so the true figure is a very small fraction of what this book claims.

______________________________________________________________

Page 831 - The First Moon Landing

“The Nixon years witnessed the fulfillment of President Kennedy’s commitment in 1961 to achieve the goal, ‘before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon.” That man was Apollo 11 astronaut Neil A. Armstrong."

"On July 20, 1969, at 10:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Armstrong descended from the Eagle lunar landing craft and set foot on the moon’s surface. Armstrong radiod back the famous message: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

CORRECTIONS:

Landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth - 5 times - was the greatest technological achievement in world history. To this day, no other nation has accomplished this feat. To dedicate a mere 5 paragraphs (eleven sentences) and one picture (2 7/8 x 3 3/8 - right) to this unprecedented technological achievement is a smack in the face of America and another way this book trivializes great American accomplishments. This book has 2 full pages devoted to the Joe McCarthy era of the 1950s. This book should have two pages dedicated to the Space Program and 5 paragraphs to Joe McCarthy.

______________________________________________________________

Page 850 - The Nation’s Birthday

“Americans held a nationwide birthday party to mark July 4, 1976, the bicentennial, the 200th anniversary of the approval of the Declaration of Independence.”

The caption under the picture at right reads:“VIEWING HISTORY: Majestic tall ships sail past the Statue of Liberty in celebrationm of the bicentennial. Drawing inferences: What images of the nation’s past do these ships bring to mind?”

CORRECTION: Another way this book trivializes America. This book has 2 paragraphs - 6 sentences - on the nation’s bicentennial along with a picture - right. The McCarthy era had 2 full pages. The nation’s 200th birthday was a huge national event and should be at least 2 pages. There is a picture of a huge fireworks display on pages 822-823 celebrating the arrival of the new century, a celebration over really nothing - a change of year.

The question posed to students under the photo - “What images of the nation’s past do these ships bring to mind?” - is an odd question. The discussion should be on issues like: How America has maintained it’s freedom for 200 years; the principles of our Republic; the brilliance of the Constitution and it’s authors; how America has saved the free world in the 20th century and so on.